Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Charles Anthony Raven Crosland, Member for Grimsby, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Power Stations (Reliability)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies are being made in his Department of the reliability of large power stations—1,000 to 1,300 MW—as compared with the older smaller units.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Ales Eadie): Reliability is the subject of continuing exchanges between my Department and the CEGB.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that a move towards smaller units might reduce design and construction time, add greater flexibility to the programme of generating equipment, and possibly open the way for experimenting with combined heat and power units?

Mr. Eadie: I am advised that, even taking into account the lower availability, it is still cheaper to generate electricity from sets of from 500 MW to 660 MW than from smaller units. The choice of sites which would be necessary if we were to revert to small units could lead to additional problems.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Surely it is necessary to strike a balance. Whilst accepting the economics of larger units, even in spite of breakdowns such as those we have in Yorkshire at Drax, is it not also necessary to use heat from power stations? What studies are being made to combine both virtues?

Mr. Eadie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have informed the House of this before. A study group under the Department's Chief Scientist is currently analysing the technical and economic aspects of district heating supplied from combined heat and power plants. The results of the analysis are due to be published this month.

Mr. Rost: Are not the Minister's persistent answers on this subject complacent and disappointing? What is he doing to encourage the use of the fluidised bed combustion process, which is ideally suited for smaller units combining heat and power?

Mr. Eadie: I have already given an answer about combined heat and power. I thought that that answer would elicit some expression of pleasure from the hon. Member. We have moneys under the International Energy Agency to have the fluidised bed combustion process prototype at Grimethorpe, which the whole of the energy industry welcomes.

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next hopes to meet the Chairman of the UKAEA.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): My Department is in regular contact with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and I meet the chairman as necessary from time to time.

Mr. Gray: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he pay particular attention to his view that there is no realistic alternative to a strong nuclear programme in the future? With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to the chairman the necessity of publicising at all times the outstanding safety record of the nuclear industry in this country so that this can do something to counter the hysterical attitude being adopted in certain quarters?

Mr. Benn: I dealt with this in the debate that took place 10 days ago. I paid tribute to the record of safety. I hope that the House will not think that all those who raise questions about nuclear safety are hysterical, because they are not. The Royal Commission has drawn attention to certain problems, and I would expect that both the chairman and the responsible Minister in the House would want to take a measured view on these matters.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority pressing my right hon. Friend for a decision on the commercial fast breeder reactor, as a decision was promised for last autumn?

Mr. Benn: There is a great deal of interest in the next decision on the fast breeder reactor. In view of the Royal Commission's report and its request for more time, it seems to be right that there should be time. Whatever the timing of the decision, there are many people who think that the construction of the fast breeder reactor will probably come later, by which time it is to be hoped that many of these questions will be resolved.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the indecision and the argument between his Department and the Department of the Environment over the thermal oxide processing plant at Windscale, we stand a very real chance of losing a valuable Japanese contract? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to accelerate the correct policy?

Mr. Benn: There is no indecision. In March of last year, speaking as the Minister responsible for nuclear power, I made a statement. The planning inquiry procedure, which is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, is designed to safeguard the public interest. If we were to reach the point where the application of planning inquiries and the use of them for the purposes for which they were intended were to be described as indecision, that would be a very bad day.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has in front of him any proposals from the Atomic Energy Authority or the CEGB, or both organisations combined, for addi-

tional atomic power stations? When he meets the chairman will he ask him, rather than to put new power stations on green field sites, to turn his attention to the extension of the life of existing power stations, which otherwise might become hulks of radioactivity indefinitely?

Mr. Benn: I do not know that I can answer the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I shall write to him about it. The main concern, which I share, is that the decision about the next generation or the next group of thermal power stations should be reached. In this respect, the Atomic Energy Authority last summer recommended that I should re-examine the case for the SGHWR, which was the decision taken in 1974. Any indecision that there may be, if that is the charge, arises from the fact that the AEA has asked the Government to look again at a decision already taken and already publicised.

Smokeless Fuel Stocks

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the stocks of smokeless fuel held in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the stocks of smokeless fuel currently held in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eadie: Total stocks of solid smokeless fuels, including those for industrial uses but excluding those held by merchants, in the United Kingdom at 31st December 1976, the latest date for which figures are available, were approximately 3·7 million tons.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: In the Government's view, are these figures adequate? If they are adequate, can the hon. Gentleman explain why my constituents cannot get any?

Mr. Eadie: No, we do not regard them as adequate. There has been difficulty in respect of supplies. The National Coal Board hopes to have the new Betws Drift mine in production by April 1978, and when fully operational it will produce about half a million tons of anthracite per annum. In addition, the Board is seeking permission to open new opencast sites, one of which is estimated to contain


about 700,000 tons of excellent quality anthracite that could be extracted over five years from the date of authorisation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: On 8th February the Under-Secretary told me in a Written Answer that there had been 26 explosions since last September involving imported anthracite. From which country, or countries, is the dangerous fuel coming? Will he confirm that the reason for the explosions is the presence in the cargoes of unexploded detonators made of aluminium or some other non-ferrous material that cannot be detected by normal means?

Mr. Eadie: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been communicating about this matter. I cannot give him the details of the countries but I shall write to him. We are considering this matter.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the supply of anthracite there are manufactured smokeless fuels such as Phurnacite for which there is increasing demand? Will my hon. Friend have regular contact with the National Coal Board and ensure that regard is had to the people living in the areas where smokeless fuel is produced, as quite a deal of smoke is produced in producing smokeless fuel?

Mr. Eadie: I shall convey my hon. Friend's comments to the NCB.

Mr. Fell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that smokeless fuels are apparently so poor that they either fall straight through the grate or put out the fire?

Mr. Eadie: I am aware that there are many grades of smokeless fuels. As I understand it, some are in great demand by consumers.

Nuclear Power Plant (Exports)

4. Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he intends to take to enable the United Kingdom nuclear power plant industry to compete abroad.

Mr. Benn: Overseas business is an important factor that must be taken into account in decisions on nuclear policy.

Mr. Hastings: Is not the best service that the Government could offer exporters the taking of a firm decision about the future nuclear reactor, a decision that surely should have been taken many years

ago? Is it not far too late now to go over to the light water reactor if we are to have any success in export markets? If that is so, surely it is the Government's first duty to lay down a firm policy whatever decision is taken about the reactor, to stick to it and to leave it to the industry to get on with the job without the further risk of change within a substantial number of years.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's last point about a firm policy, but he is asking the Government to reopen the firm decision that was taken in 1974. I think he will recognise that Governments should be reluctant to change their view on something as fundamental and long-term as the thermal reactor system. It is true that the Atomic Energy Authority has invited me to look again at the SGHWR proposal. I have asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to examine the three systems —namely, the SGHWR, the PWR and the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I have asked the industry to report, and I hope to be able to announce a decision some time this year.

Mr. Palmer: In considering these matters, has my right hon. Friend taken into account the latest recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer, or attempted answer, to my hon. Friend was no answer? My hon. Friend asked what measures the right hon. Gentleman was taking, and he replied to the effect that it is an important factor. That is not an answer to the question. It underlines the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has no measures to announce. Does he agree that the nuclear power industry is in an extremely demoralised state at present, and that unless some answers are produced fairly soon there will not be an industry for which answers will be relevant?

Mr. Benn: Candidly, I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the difficulties that arise in assessing—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. I have announced the measures that we are taking. We are asking the Inspectorate to report on the


safety of the three systems. I am sure that the House would not expect me to adopt a system that had not been approved. If the hon. Gentleman wants a decision before safety factors are properly assessed—

Mr. Skeet: We want a decision. The right hon. Gentleman has all the facts.

Mr. Benn: I have not received from the Nuclear Inspectorate its assessment of the safety factors of the PWR, which, I gather, is the hon. Gentleman's choice. I make no apology for waiting until the safety factors have been reported to me before I reach a view.

Fast Breeder Reactors (Safety)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions the Nuclear Inspectorate has had with its United States counterparts about the safety of fast breeder reactors.

Mr. Benn: The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has periodic discussions with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with an exchange agreement. The most recent occasion was in October 1976, when a range of nuclear safety matters, including fast reactors, was discussed in the United States of America.

Mr. Thorpe: May we assume that the Inspectorate and the Minister himself attach due weight to the views of President Ford when in office—namely, that it is no longer inevitable that plutonium should be recycled? That being so, will he consider following the position of the American Government and declare a moratorium on the reprocessing of spent oxide fuel until much more scientific evidence is available?

Mr. Benn: I follow very carefully, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does, the worldwide discussions about nuclear matters, because it is not only in this country that Ministers and others are looking carefully at various factors, including the plutonium factor, the speed with which fast breeder reactors should be considered and the problems of reprocessing. I try to keep abreast of the discussions elsewhere but base myself on the position that safety must be a dominant consideration. But I think that the House also knows that in the case of reprocess-

ing we have an inherited nuclear programme going back to the Magnox station, authorised in 1956, and that there are many fuel elements that must be reprocessed. I made it absolutely clear when I met a recent Japanese delegation about the Japanese contract that we were in the same position as the Japanese, that we needed reprocessing facilities and that the planning arrangements under the supervision of the Secretary of State for the Environment were at present the governing factor.

Mr. Hannam: As the Flowers Report was received last September and the Secretary of State has had his question-and-answer session, may I ask when we shall have an official Government response to that report and then a chance for the House to debate it?

Mr. Benn: I have had the opportunity of discussing the report with the chairman of the committee. The report contained many important recommendations, and I think it right that the Government should give a detailed and measured response to the recommendations, some of which impact upon the organisation of government itself. The work of preparing a response is in hand, discussions are in progress, and it will be published as soon as possible.

North Sea Oil Exploration

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the latest North Sea oil exploration allocations to applicants under the fifth round.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member will now know, my right hon. Friend made a statement on this matter on 9th February.

Mr. Dykes: Why was it not possible for the Secretary of State to give more encouragement to the many smaller British companies which applied?

Dr. Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the names that were published on 9th February, he will see that a number of smaller British firms are in this allocation. We hope that there will be more frequent allocations than in the past.

Mr. Madden: What progress is being made in the dispute between the British


and Irish Governments about the ownership of certain blocks?

Dr. Mabon: The Irish Government, unhappily, counter-designated two of our blocks—[Interruption.]—I am using the correct word—the two blocks mentioned in the fifth round. On Friday the United Kingdom Government lodged a formal protest with the Irish Government and also intimated to them that we wished some form of judicial determination to be agreed between us.

Mrs. Bain: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although much has been learned since the first round of allocations of exploration licences, when they were handed out like lollipops to children, there is still a great deal that the Government could do to ensure that the wealth from oil goes back to the economy and is recycled to ensure long-term job prospects for the people in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support. Since the last round we have instituted the British National Oil Corporation, we have the petroleum revenue tax and we have taken other measures which bring the take for the British people up to about 85 per cent. of what is produced.

Mr. Gray: Why have the Government deviated from their declared policy of not arm-twisting in connection with the allocation of licences, when a company with the experience and expertise of Amoco has been excluded in the present round?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot discuss any particular application, because the applications are confidential. I hope that our discussions with Amoco will be continued.

Energy Commission

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to include only one environmentalist representative on the proposed Energy Commission.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his proposals to establish an energy council.

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consumer representation he intends to include on the Energy Commission.

Mr. Benn: No decisions have yet been taken about the composition and functions of the proposed Energy Commission and no groups or individuals have yet been invited to become members. I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement whicht I hope to make in due course.

Mr. Ross: May we express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will include more than one environmentalist on the Commission, and that he will consult the Committee for Environmental Conservation on the appointments, if there are more than one, to represent a wide range of conservation bodies in this country?

Mr. Benn: There are many people with a legitimate interest in the work of the Commission. If it were too big, it might not be effective. I hope that the point that the hon. Gentleman and others have in mind in pressing particular candidates may be met by making the documents for the Commission more open to the public, so that representations can be made by those who cannot themselves be members.

Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his energy forum will not be just a talking shop, with trade union leaders over-represented, but will become a genuine energy forum for the proposal of energy strategy and advice to the Government?

Mr. Benn: It is intended that it should be a body of people of whom the overwhelming majority have a direct rôle in the industry, on the management and trade union sides. I think that the Government must inevitably retain the control of investment, which is the key question in energy. Therefore, it cannot be an executive body. My intention is that it should bring together those on the side of management and the unions who are most directly concerned with the industries involved.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend gets round to making the appointments—on a patronage basis, of course—will he bear in mind that there is strong opposition from a fellow by the name of the Duke of Rutland, who is, with others, opposing the extraction of coal in the Vale of Belvoir? Is he aware that until quite recently this man was Chairman of the East Midlands Economic


Planning Council and that it was his aim, so we are told, to try to attract jobs into the East Midlands? As soon as there is an opportunity of finding some employment on his land, he is trying to stop it.

Mr. Benn: I think the House knows very well that about 500 million tons of coal are thought to lie in the Vale of Belvoir. I cannot give the exact value, but it will be far more than £500 million. The nation's interest in seeing that coal reserves of that kind are fully developed is very well known, but that will be subject to whatever planning procedures my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wishes. I am not responsible for the Duke of Rutland.

Mr. Tom King: Can the Secretary or State confirm whether—if it is finally intended to include a representative from the oil industry involved in the North Sea, which one would have thought extremely important—it is a requirement of the Government that a further union representative should be added to the Commission? Is the right hon. Gentleman turning this into his private form of Bullock, or is it intended genuinely as an Energy Commission to consider energy strategy for the nation?

Mr. Benn: The question of representation of the oil interest is one that has very much occupied my mind. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the interest of labour in energy is a product of my preference rather than that the fact that the miners dig the coal and other people work in the industries concerned entitles them to be represented—[Interruption.] It is not an executive body; it is a strategy body. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, on the NEDC, the composition of which has become non-controversial between the parties, the representation of capital and labour on an equal basis has long been accepted. It would be ludicrous to try to plan the strategy for energy without the proper representation of labour.

Price Control Powers

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has yet identified the likely subcrisis to which the Minister of State referred during the passage of the Energy Bill[Lords]last year; and, if so, whether he plans to inform the interested parties.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: As I explained in Standing Committee, it would be very difficult to try to define precisely in advance every type of situation that might give rise to the use of the permanent price control power in the Energy Act.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is the Minister aware that many people involved in the non-nationalised sector of the United Kingdom energy arena were considerably concerned at the frequent references to sub-crisis which the Minister made during the passage of the Bill and the fact that since then his Department has not come clean in giving a precise definition of what might trigger off the price control mechanism?

Dr. Mabon: It is very difficult to desscribe such a situation, but one can recognise it when one sees it.

Fusion Research Programme

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, following the inability of the Council of Ministers of the EEC to reach a decision on the siting of the Joint European Torus project, he will now put forward plans, in co-operation with members of the International Energy Agency, and other nations, to develop a British-based fusion programme on the existing facilities and team at Culham.

Mr. Benn: The fusion research programme of the International Energy Agency is led, by invitation of the members, by the European Atomic Energy Community, whose own programme includes all fusion work at Culham. We now chair the EEC Council of Ministers and are continuing bilateral discussions on JET with our Community partners with the intention of calling a Research Council as soon as progress appears possible.

Mr. Osborn: I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the Energy Committee of the European Parliament in what was a successful visit, but is he not aware that there has been some confusion at ministerial level between Ministers of Energy, Industry and Science? Has he studied the report of the Select Committee of the other place and the view of Lord Hinton and Lord Ironside about the virtues of Culham as a site? Whatever the decision, whether it is


Garching or Culham, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that work should continue at whatever place is not chosen for the JET project? What constructive proposals can he put forward to the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Benn: The latter point is not at issue. Work on fusion at Culham has been going on since 1955. As Minister for Technology I had responsibility for that for a long period. There is no confusion over this matter. Two Councils of Ministers have been set up within the European Communities—the Research Council that is chaired by the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and the Energy Council that I chair.
In respect of JET, we are pressing the British case very hard, both privately and publicly. I should normally expect to be present at the Research Council, though I would not chair it, to ensure that the other Ministers recognise the strength of the case for JET at Culham and that they recognise that it merits their support.

Mr. Forman: Is nuclear fusion regarded by the Minister's Department as an alternative energy source, in the normal language of debate, or as part of the nuclear programme for future years? If the latter, does the Minister see any financial conflict between going ahead with
the large cost of the CFR1 and, at the same time, trying to go ahead with the expensive fusion project?

Mr. Benn: It is difficult to know how to balance the two. I have heard the argument that the fusion programme may be able to generate electricity much earlier than was previously thought and that it will be the turn of the century before the fast breeders become operational on the present basis. It is, therefore, possible that the balance between the two in competing for resources might become a factor. It is right that we should fund JET in order to advance what appears to be a more environmentally acceptable system for generating electricity.

North Sea Oil and Gas Reserves

11. Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy until what year he considers that the North Sea reserves will enable the United Kingdom to be self-sufficient in oil and gas.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Our proved and probable reserves should last into the 1990s at least. The exact period of self-sufficiency depends on the scale of reserves still to be discovered and the Government's licensing and depletion policy during the 1980s.

Mr. Renton: Can the Minister go further and tell us, on his present best estimate, how long self-sufficiency, particularly in oil, will last? To what extent will he, so far as it lies within his power, ensure that the benefits of this self-sufficiency are not frittered away in the future by extravagant Government spending?

Dr. Mabon: The last point is a large issue of debate and I shall not go into that now. Our estimate is between 3,000 million and 4,500 million tons, which is an enormous range and indicates the difficulty of trying to assess exactly how long we shall maintain self-sufficiency of 100 million tons a year or thereabouts. The Brown Book, when it is published later this year, will show a shift, as there was last year, in recoverable reserves as distinct from absolute reserves.

Mr. Greville Janner: When are we likely to be self-sufficient in oil? Can my right hon. Friend give an indication, at the present value of the pound, of the the value of the oil at that time?

Dr. Mabon: We are on target for our aim of being self-sufficient in the calendar year 1980. As to the value of the oil then, I should have to consult OPEC.

Mr. Bowden: Does the Minister agree that it would be morally wrong for the country to expand oil production above what we need and to use the money that would be gained to subsidise standards higher than those that we are earning, as we shall then leave nothing for our great-grandchildren?

Dr. Mabon: That argument considerably appeals to me as a Presbyterian. Our first object is to achieve self-sufficiency. The Government will have to take a decision soon on depletion and refinery policies.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he has just given about consultation with OPEC? Does he realise that we should not be allowed to join OPEC within the


existing rules, and why is it assumed that the Government will want to charge the same price as OPEC countries for our own product?

Dr. Mabon: We do not have to join a body in order to consult it. It is fair to say, however, that although we do not have to reflect the oil prices charged by OPEC, they are bound to be a factor in deciding the economic well-being of the country.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister agree that, in order to extend the period during which we shall be self-sufficient, there is a strong case for the Government looking again at the treatment of marginal fields?

Dr. Mabon: Under present legislation —which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows about—we have not received any case that we have been able to look upon favourably. But it is a matter that agitates and concerns the Government, and if we are given specific evidence about any of these probelms we shall willingly consider it.

Electricity and Gas Showrooms (Closure)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many electricity and gas showrooms have closed in the past year; and how many others are scheduled to close within the next year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): I am informed by the industries that 24 electricity and 14 gas showrooms were closed in 1976. In 1977 they plan to close 17 electricity and 12 gas showrooms.

Mr. Madden: Is my hon. Friend aware that 10 electricity showrooms are to be closed in Yorkshire, three of them in my constituency? Does he agree that electricity showrooms provide important services in addition to the payment of accounts, and will he urge electricity boards to reconsider this extremely short-term policy with a view to profitable city centre showrooms subsidising less profitable ones in rural areas?

Dr. Cunningham: I am aware that the closure of electricity showrooms seems to be falling disproportionately on my hon. Friend's constituency. I recognise his long interest in consumer affairs in this and other fields. Decisions of this nature

are for the day-to-day management of the industries, and such decisions are taken only after consultation with the appropriate consultative council or the Gas Consumer Council. I should emphasise that the closures represent fewer than 2 per cent. of all showrooms, and I cannot agree that decisions on the retention of showrooms are matters upon which I should advise the boards. These are decisions that they must take for themselves.

Mr. McCrindle: Has not the time come when consideration should be given to merging gas and electricity showrooms, particularly in small towns?

Dr. Cunningham: That matter has been considered on a number of occasions. It was considered by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office and it has been reconsidered recently. On both occasions the unanimous conclusion was that there was no case for this.

Coal Demand

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the extent that the market for coal has been reduced by the increased use of gas.

Mr. Eadie: Coal's share of the overall fuel market has been affected to some extent by the increased use of gas. But it is not possible to say by how much since so many factors affect fuel usage.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Minister aware that the tonnage of coal used in the domestic market has dropped from 28 million tons to 10½ million tons? Is it the policy of the Government to let that trend continue and to let natural gas roar ahead, or have the Government any suggestions for dealing with the matter?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are certainly questionable. He gives the impression that that has happened in one year. It is a fact that the domestic market has been eroded, and as increased supplies of gas come on to the market they will have an effect on the energy market. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased when I tell him that when there is increasing demand in the energy market there is a bigger take for each of the various energy industries. He will also be pleased to know that this year an


extra 5 million tons of coal will probably be burned in power stations.

Mr. Kelley: Does the Minister agree that there would be a possibility of improving domestic sales of gas, electricity and coal for domestic heating if there were established in various urban centres—where these three organisations now operate independently—domestic heating centres where trained people could advise those requiring domestic heating on the best form to suit their requirements?

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend answered the point about the amalgamation of various services earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Volley (Mr. Kelley) is very knowledgeable in these matters, and he will know that the National Coal Board is always trying to push the use of coal in the domestic market. One of the significant factors is the many new appliances coming on to the market. I note what my hon. Friend said about the marketing of coal.

Mr. Hannam: Will the Minister confirm that the supply of free and concessionary coal to miners represents nearly one-quarter of all domestic coal supplies? How does he reconcile that with the Government's general attitude towards perks in other industries?

Mr. Eadie: That is not related to the original Question. The supply of concessionary coal to miners is a separate question associated with the industry, and acting on it would not solve the problem of the erosion of the domestic market for coal.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to maintaining a balance between the fuels is a drastic reduction in the amount of electricity generation based on oil and an increased proportion of electricity generation attributable to coal and nuclear fuels?

Mr. Eadie: I get the implication of my hon. Friend's question, but I do not believe that the drastic reduction for which he calls is possible. The consumption of oil in power stations has already been drastically reduced, and it is doubtful whether it could be reduced much further.

Coal Supplies

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the estimated amounts of tons of coal supplied from the British coalfields during each of the next 10 years; and what would be the estimated part of those tonnages which would be supplied from the new Selby coalfield.

Mr. Eadie: The recently published tripartite report "Coal for the Future" re-endorsed the target for colliery production of 120 million tons in 1985. Selby is expected to produce 8 million tons a year by then and to reach full production a couple of years later.
Previous estimates for annual output in the intervening years are now being reassessed in the light of the agreement on early retirement for mineworkers and would be influenced by any introduction of an incentive scheme when pay policy permits.

Mr. Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the next decade or so the demand for energy is bound to exceed the supply? Will he meet the NUM and the NCB as quickly as possible to discuss the future of the industry in order to ensure increased production by new investment and other methods? Will he also say something about future supplies of anthracite? Is he aware that we were short of anthracite and smokeless fuel in Yorkshire and that this shortage was felt very hard during the last winter?

Mr. Eadie: I had the pleasure of visiting Bentley Colliery, in Yorkshire, on Friday and was very impressed by the effort of the men there. As regards the outlook for the production of coal, the NCB and the NUM have a working party looking into this whole question and it will be reporting shortly. The union and the board are conscious that we shall need an enhanced training scheme to deal with the problem of early retirement. I dealt with anthracite in a previous Question.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that Selby is already very far behind schedule and that water table problems there are a great deal more serious than was ever envisaged, with some people in the industry talking about taking three feet out of a nine feet seam? As virtually no work has yet started,


would it not have been better to have started the Vale of Belvoir first?

Mr. Eadie: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In order to assist him further, I refer him to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) last week.

Coal Imports

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the countries from which the United Kingdom imports coal, giving the quantities and types of coal imports from each country for the latest available period.

Mr. Eadie: As the information is rather detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Fell: Could the hon. Gentleman make a guess as to when we might reach the production targets set for our own industry 20 years ago?

Mr. Eadie: I regret that I could not give the hon. Gentleman that information without notice.

COAL IMPORTS 1976 (ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND TONNES)


Country of Consignment
Anthracite
Steam Coal
Coking Coal
Total


Federal Republic of Germany
…
…
27
—
141
169


France
…
…
8
—

8


Netherlands
…
…
7
124
—
130


Belgium/Luxembourg
…
…
29
54
—
82


Ireland
…
…
1
14
—
14


Total EEC
…
…
72
191
141
404


United States
…
…
1
53
696
750


USSR
…
…
10
18
—
29


Poland
…
…
—
50
78
128


Australia
…
…
—
1,133
334
1,467


South Africa
…
…
14
—
—
14


Morocco
…
…
15
—
—
15


North Vietnam
…
…
30
—
—
30


Total Other Countries
…
…
70
1,254
1,108
2,433


Total Imports
…
…
142
1,445
1,249
2,836

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Lomé Convention (Discussions)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the main topics for discussion at the next meeting of governmental representatives set up under the Lomé Agreement.

Mr. Greville Janner: If I may refer again to the Vale of Belvoir, I fully accept that we must use our resources as swiftly as possible, but can my hon. Friend assure the people of Leicestershire that the resources will be exploited with the minimum permanent disturbance to the very beautiful surrounding countryside?

Mr. Eadie: I have no hesitation in giving my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. The NCB has given a similar assurance from time to time.

Mr. Tom King: As the market for coal will clearly be affected by its competitiveness, and as there are Press reports of a 15 per cent. rise in coal prices shortly, can the Minister give a clear assurance that there is no truth in the further rumour that there will be an additional price increase later in the year?

Mr. Eadie: It is not the job of a Minister to comment on rumours. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the 15 per cent. increase.

Following are the figures:

Mr. Forman: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the agenda for the next meeting of Government representatives under the Lomé Agreement.

The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mr. Frank Judd): The agenda for the next meeting of the Joint Council of Ministers to be held in Fiji


on 13th and 14th April will not be settled until later next month. But I expect the council to review all aspects of the convention, including the working of its trade provisions, the operation so far of the European Development Fund and Stabex schemes, and the start of its arrangements for industrial co-operation.

Mr. Hooley: Can my hon. Friend say whether the discussions will include a debate about the common fund and commodity agreements in the wider context of the world discussion of these matters?

Mr. Judd: I do not see these matters having a high priority on the agenda.

Mr. Forman: I recognise the important rôle of these discussions and the development of Stabex and the European Development Fund, but does the Minister agree that it is important for this country to open its markets to the manufactured exports of developing countries as an overriding priority and that this should be discussed in public at such meetings?

Mr. Judd: That is certainly an important part of the overall strategy of development and everything that we shall be talking about in Fiji will be related to that strategy.

Mr. Tim Renton: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), can the Minister say what consideration his Department is giving to the question of the common fund for commodity stabilisation? Can he assure us that this year the question will not fall fatuously between two stools —his Department and the Department of Trade—as it did at the Nairobi Conference last year?

Mr. Judd: There is an overall position of the Government on this matter, though the primary responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. We have said all along that we are participating constructively in the discussions and that we wish to investigate the precise terms before finally committing ourselves.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the European Parliament's Committee on Overseas Development in Brussels on Wednesday there will be criticism of Governments which fail to

do all they can to prevent any Lomé Conference being held in Uganda or to prevent the Community being represented at any such conference? Can he assure me that we shall do everything that we can to prevent such conferences being held in Uganda so that I may better be able to defend the British Government?

Mr. Judd: There is no question of any Community Minister attending such conferences in Ugaanda.

Mr. Tapsell: In the light of recent events in Uganda, will consideration be given to the economic privileges currently enjoyed by Uganda under the Lomé Convention? Will this be a matter for discussion?

Mr. Judd: Community aid to Uganda is a multilateral matter and a subject for the Community as a whole to decide. It is distinct from the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to Uganda, which has ceased. Only one small EDF project has been approved in Uganda, and we and our partners will certainly keep the matter under close review.

Mozambique (Rhodesian Refugees)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much British public money has been expended to date on Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique; and whether the Government intend to make any further contributions.

Mr. Judd: As my predecessor said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 14th October last, payment of £50,000 has been made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from the special contribution of £100,000 offered for Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique. The balance will be paid from the aid programme for 1977–78.
The question of a further contribution will be kept under review having regard to the circumstance of Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique and the needs of the United Nations High Commissioner.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not virtually certain that the vast majority of the so-called refugees are, in fact, terrorists under training or Rhodesians who have been abducted and are being indoctrinated? Has any British official been to these camps to check the position? In


default of any precise information, why are British taxpayers being required to subsidise terrorism, and Marxist terrorism at that?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman has made interventions of that kind before which have been proved to be totally unfounded. There is no reason to suppose that any of the remarks he has just made have any foundation in reality. Our assistance to refugees is concentrated on agricultural, health and educational requirements as well as immediate humanitarian needs, and, indeed, British officials have visited Mozambique.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend recall that quite recently the Conservative Party advocated that we should give aid to refugees who went over the border into Botswana? If they are refugees, they should not be distinguished by which border they cross. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we shall continue to consult with the United Nations while there is still an illegal régime in Rhodesia?

Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government will continue to meet the humanitarian needs of refugees wherever they may be in the world and whenever that need arises.

Mr. Tapsell: Has the Mozambique Government's decree of 7th February 1976 concerning the nationalisation of private property affected any British citizens or companies? If so, will this be taken into account?

Mr. Judd: That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put it down, I shall give him a considered reply.

European Community Council of Ministers

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Judd: I plan to attend and preside at the meeting of Development Ministers provisionally arranged for 22nd March.

Mr. Spearing: When my hon. Friend meets the Development Ministers on 22nd March, will he draw to their attention the intense disappointment in this country that only £10 million of EEC aid will

go to the non-associable South-East Asian members of the Commonwealth and others? Will he tell them that at the time of the referendum there was great pressure on the public because it was said that the EEC would be able to help these countries more? Will he tell them that we are disappointed and we look for better things?

Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that it is now proposed to allocae 45 million units of account for non-associates. But I certainly share his misgivings about the failure of us all within the Community to respond as fully as we might to the needs of non-associates. This remains a high priority in British policy.

Mr. Forman: Since the United Kingdom Government occupy the chair of the EEC for the current six months, is the hon. Gentleman intending to raise with the American Administration some of their ideas to increase the trade flow between the Community and the developed world and the developing countries to the mutual benefit of both sides?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in our policy towards development as a whole we always pay high priority to a close dialogue and discussion with our American colleagues.

Directorate of Overseas Surveys

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he has come to any conclusions about the future of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys at Tolworth.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Tomlinson): Not yet, Sir. I shall, of course, inform the House as soon as a final decision has been reached, in accordance with my hon. Friend's precedessor's undertaking in the Adjournment debate on this subject on 17th November last.

Sir N. Fisher: I was going to refer to that because November 17th is quite a long time ago. Bearing in mind that the Minister then said, and I quote his words—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I reminded the House the other day that quotations at Question Time are not in order except from the Government Front Bench.

Sir N. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman take fully into account the Minister's assurance on 17th November that more precise information about the future of my constituents would be given as soon as possible? Will he also bear in mind that they are entitled to a more definitive statement than the Minister was then able to make? That was three months ago. When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement about this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret the delay and I do not underestimate the problems facing the staff of DOS and their families during this prolonged period of uncertainty. I repeat the undertaking that more information will be available as soon as all the considerations have been gone into. I recognise the special problems on both sides of the question. It is for that reason, and because the DOS is a difficult case, that we are taking another look at the position.

Mrs. Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that there was great distress in my constituency following the debate on 17th November—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great distress in a lot of constituencies, but if we wander around all the constituencies we shall be in trouble.

Mrs. Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind when reviewing this question that the majority of cartographer jobs are often south of the border? Has he an innate belief that the people of Scotland cannot handle cartography?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is because this is a complex matter that all considerations will be taken into account before making a decision.

Stern Group

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will now instruct the Crown Agents to take the necessary proceedings, in their capacity as a creditor to the Stern Group, to institute bankruptcy proceedings against William Stern.

Mr. Judd: Proceedings have already been taken by another creditor. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the Crown Agents to do so.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Stern Group crashed owing £110 million? Will he also acknowledge that according to The Sunday Times a few weeks ago the Bank of England leaned on another firm of creditors and stopped it taking the necessary action? Does he also agree that we cannot be sure that Keyser Ullmann will take the necessary action in the end? Since the Crown Agents are one of the 32 creditors, they ought to do the decent thing and file a bankruptcy claim.

Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend will recognise that it was the judgment of the majority of other creditors—with which the Crown Agents concurred—that there was a better chance of recovering their funds by the orderly run-down of the companies involved. This precludes them from putting any of the companies of which they are creditors into liquidation, but it does not preclude them from taking proceedings in their capacity as personal creditors of William Stern. Indeed, they have specifically refused to settle with him by way of a deed of arrangement.

Mr. Rost: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Crown Agents will not bail out the Labour Party Property Company?

Departmental Programme

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he hopes to complete his review of the whole programme of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Judd: The process by which priorities and allocations are determined is a continuous one and there is no specific stage at which it is complete. Future disbursement plans for the whole programme are reviewed in an annual cycle. The 1977 cycle is just beginning, and will be particularly important because it must take account of the severe cuts in the aid programme. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not the practice to publish such plans of annual levels of disbursement for particular countries or programmes.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, except that I did not ask him for the last bit. Can he tell us what are the exact priorities


that will be envisaged in implementing these drastic cuts? Is it the Government's intention to make sure that the philosophy contained in the White Paper is the one that is followed?

Mr. Judd: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we intend to stand by the strategy spelt out in the White Paper. Our first priority is to try to avoid cutting any existing commitments. Having done that, we shall put the emphasis, and we shall continue to do, on aid to the poorest countries and increasing the productivity of the poorest communities within the poor countries. As I said in the House on a previous occasion, we shall look closely at how far we can extend our co-operation in this respect not only bilaterally but also within multilateral institutions as well.

Mr. Stanbrook: Since almost all the Votes for overseas aid come out of the IMF loan, may I ask when the Government are going to stop this farce and cease pretending that we can afford to give money away?

Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with some of his hon. Friends who have taken a consistent interest in this topic, he would learn that this is in no sense charity. It is an investment in our future, because increased purchasing power on the part of the world community means increased business for Britain.

Mr. Dalyell: What priority is given to countries which have suffered from drought?

Mr. Judd: Some of the countries affected by drought are among the poorest countries of the world. We are actively reviewing their needs and shall try to maintain priority for them within the reduced aid programme.

Mr. Tim Renton: Has the Minister noticed that the number of volunteers now serving abroad under the VSO organisation appears to be diminishing? Is it also one of the priorities of his Department to help young people to get jobs abroad in the less-developed countries?

Mr. Judd: No one can possibly overestimate the continuing significant contribution made by volunteers. It is

because of this that I spent an entire day last week in discussions with returned volunteers about their experiences, the needs of the programme as they saw it and, indeed, their general observations about our overall strategy to aid and development matters.

MR. ANTHONY CROSLAND (TRIBUTES)

3.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With the permission of hon. Members, I should like to pay a short tribute to the life and work of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Anthony Crosland, our colleague, whose passing we all mourn.
He was a major political figure of the present generation, gifted beyond the reach of many of us, and I had hoped that his work and gifts would be available for many years to come in the service of his country and his party. As in the case of our former colleague, Iain Macleod, who died shortly after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is especially hard to bear when men of distinction and with more work to do are cut off. Their loss is general to the House of Commons, and general to us as a whole and to the political life of our country, no matter where we may sit in the House.
I shared a small part in Tony Crosland's life since I met him 30 years ago after he had addressed a meeting at Oxford University. He entertained me in his rooms and told me of his wish to become a Labour candidate. The university was not a world with which I was particularly well acquainted, and I could not help but note that rather distinctive manner of his. I wondered how he would go down in politics, and I asked him tactfully whether he was sure that he would feel at home away from the Oxford atmosphere. I then had the first taste of what we all got to know very quickly afterwards: he brushed me swiftly aside and left me in no doubt about what he intended to do.
Fortunately, he attracted the attention immediately of people much more important and with better judgment than myself, especially Hugh Dalton, one of whose great attributes, as the older Members


among us will remember, was his constant encouragement of young people, whoever they might be. It was he who helped Tony Crosland to secure the seat at South Gloucestershire. When he came to the House he soon made his mark from the third Bench above the Gangway, especially in debates on the Finance Bill. He made critical and penetrating but amusing speeches, especially on economic matters. Even Sir Stafford Cripps, who was the object of the criticism, seemed to unfreeze a little as he listened to some of his strictures.
But Tony Crosland's interest was not limited to economics. He and I were both delegates to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and we shared, as young men, the intense interest of watching the great figures of Europe—Churchill, Paul Reynaud, Paul-Henri Spaak, Bidault and many others—and occasionally being allowed to join in. We listened to them and watched in those days immediately after the war. There was the historic day when the doors were thrown open and we watched the German delegates march into the Chamber for the first time—a great day of reconciliation which those of us who were present will never forget. Tony Crosland and I shared many of the delights of exploring Alsace. We drank wine in great quantities and walked together in the mountains around Strasbourg.
A few years later, in 1956, he produced the book by which he is best known, "The Future of Socialism", on which much comment has been made in the last few days. It was a major work, and it was no surprise that it was wide-ranging, controversial, and pungent—all the things that he was. It was discussed and argued about by young people in the Labour Party and beyond for many years. The arguments were fierce, but they never descended into personal attacks on him, because, truth to tell, he was as much at home with those with whom he disagreed as with his friends.
He combined physical courage, mental toughness and great personal charm, and, although he always carried the aura of the university don even into his local Labour club, it was never resented. On the contrary, this characteristic was greeted with rather affectionate amusement, because in Grimsby they knew him

for what he was. They knew that he was not a humbug and that when he insisted on watching "Match of the Day" every Saturday, no matter how busy he was, it was not a pose; he genuinely enjoyed it. His charm and his bump of irreverence were as much a part of his private life as they were part of his public personality.
I believe that he was really writing about himself in his book when he said of those who call themselves Socialists:
There should always run a trace of the anarchist and the libertarian and not too much of the prig and the prude.
He lived by that, and so the company was always rather more gay, certainly more irreverent, and much more cheerful when he met with his friends.
But beneath that, and beyond his dislike of humbug and pretence, there lay a man of deep conviction and earnestness—an earnestness that he did not always parade. He was as willing to apply himself to the humdrum task of a small meeting somewhere in the provinces and to the unglamorous research as he was to the more exciting and public aspects of politics. He conducted a fundamental inquiry into the work of the co-operative movement. Later, he occupied, among others, the posts of Secretary of State for Education, President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Local Government.
During the last 10 months he applied himself with ever-increasing zest to the great issues of foreign affairs and only a month ago, in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers, he made what has been generally acknowledged to be an outstanding speech to the European Assembly, setting out his view on how the European Community should develop and how Britain would try to conduct the period of the Presidency.
As we have read, when the blow which has taken him from us fell, he was working on the problem of the next steps to be taken to achieve a peaceful settlement based on majority rule in Rhodesia while trying to secure a future for the minority.
For me personally, I have lost a deeply valued friend. For his wife, the loss is infinitely greater. All his friends felt that it was fortunate that he met and married her when he did. Their marriage has been a true partnership of loyalty and


affection. All of us here, immersed as we are in political life, know more than others can how much each of us needs the support of a devoted partner. The House will join me in sending to Susan Crosland and her family our sympathy, and also our especial thanks to her for her support to him.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border): First, I wish to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. She much regrets her absence today, but, as the Prime Minister knows, it would have been difficult to change the special plans which had been made for her.
On my right hon. Friend's behalf, I should like to associate all my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute which the Prime Minister has so movingly and understandingly paid to the late Anthony Crosland. On occasions such as this, the House shows that valuable spirit of corporate unity which lies behind all our arguments and disagreements. We all feel that we have lost an outstanding colleague who, particularly through his intellectual qualities and perhaps his style, made a great contribution to our affairs.
We all know—the country, the Government and the Labour Party—that we have suffered one of those tragic losses of which perhaps we have had all too many in recent years. The Prime Minister has generously referred to the death of Iain Macleod—an event closely related to the occasion which we are discussing —which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I remember particularly acutely.
A leading statesman and politician has been taken suddenly from us at a time when he had much still to give in the service of the nation. No doubt we all feel that such acts of fate are thoroughly perverse. But we also know that they are the inevitable hazards of our mortal lives which we have to endure. Tony Crosland himself gave us a clear example of the quality of resilience which is required on such occasions.
So we go forward now to face the tasks ahead encouraged by the memory of his achievements. But, as we do so, we pause for a moment to express our own sense

of loss and to offer to his wife our very real sympathy in the desperately sudden tragedy that she has faced with such obvious dedication and courage.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): Without question, the death of Anthony Crosland is a grievous loss to the Government and to the whole of politics. He had shown that he was an exceptional Minister in all four Departments over which he held sway. The House of Commons and public life as a whole has lost someone with quite exceptional skill, wit, vision and, I would say, impact.
I choose the word "impact" because that was what he had on all of us who had the opportunity for private discussion with him, of listening to him or of reading what he wrote.
I remember coinciding with him a few months ago when he was at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. He conducted there a Press conference lasting about 45 minutes in front of the hard-bitten United Nations and American Press corps with that typical panache, and he left them much better informed and also greatly entertained.
He also made an impact through his book, as the Prime Minister said. I went up to university in 1957, a few months after the publication of "The Future of Socialism". I think that it is true to say that that work had an impact on a whole generation of undergraduates quite outside the confines of the Labour Party. Indeed, looking back over the last 20 years, it is difficult to think of any comparable work which has had a comparable impact on a whole generation of people interested in politics and the future of our country.
Although trained as an economist, he was much concerned about matters other than the material things in life. In the last sentence of his book, he wrote:
We do not want to enter the age of abundance only to find that we have lost the values which might teach us how to enjoy it.
In the last few days, much has been written and spoken about the strain on the lives of politicians and senior Ministers in particular. I do not want to add to that, but I would say that Susan Crosland, especially in these last few days, set a wonderful and warming example of


loyalty and love. To her, whose loss is the greatest, we would all wish to extend our heartfelt sympathy.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles): All parties in the House will feel diminished by the passing of Anthony Crosland. I want to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the tribute which has been paid, and I have been asked by right hon. and hon. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru to associate them with these tributes and to extend their condolences to Mrs. Crosland.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall): I wish to add a few words to the eloquent tributes which have been paid to Tony Crosland.
I remember him when he first came to this House—an elegant and debonair figure. At that time, he often spoke rather contemptuously of Parliament and all its affairs. I never knew how much this was a pose. But what is certain is that very soon he acquired all those qualities which turned him into an exceedingly able, efficient, and likeable parliamentarian, and the criticism which had been made of him when he first came here that he was too light-hearted quickly disappeared.
He showed that he was capable, in spite of his apparent ease and disinterest in many things, of an immense industry and a debating skill which, when aroused on matters that he had at heart, were formidable and impressive.
Although he often felt passionately on social issues, his approach to them sometimes appeared to be an intellectual rather than an emotional one. Perhaps the major contribution which he made to public affairs lay outside this House rather than inside it. In my view, it was his book, which has been referred to already, "The Future of Socialism"; it had a profound effect on the thinking of the young and indeed on all Social Democrats. It influenced the political scene more than any other post-war book.
In this, and in all his speeches and lectures at the time, he argued that priority of thought should be given to the human rather than to the economic side of Socialism: how to enable people to

enjoy greater freedom; fun—he emphasised fun—and happiness; and how to abolish inequality and injustice. Changes in the ownership of industry he regarded as secondary matters to be carried out only to the extent that they contributed to the social changes which he advocated. In all these matters he spoke very much the same language as Hugh Gaitskell.
In his ministerial posts, which he held with great distinction, Tony Crosland tried as far as possible to transform his ideals into realities.
With his death, Parliament has lost a cultured and civilised man and a political philosopher whose instincts were devoted to radical causes. The nation has lost a great public servant.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: (Staffordshire, South-West): I come from Grimsby, and I should like to add a few brief words, because I fought Tony Crosland in the 1966 General Election and possibly saw as much of him as anyone in this House during the long period when he was my Member of Parliament. I think that I can possibly presume on the time of the House to speak on behalf of the people of his constituency, where my own family still live.
In his attitudes as a Member of Parliament, he showed that behind the philosopher and the profound intellect there was a man who cared about people. He cared about ordinary people and about ordinary and simple problems. He was greatly loved in Grimsby, especially among those who were not, when he first came into this House with a majority of only 101 votes, of his persuasion. But, by the formidable combination of intellectual stature and caring for ordinary people, he won them over.
Perhaps I saw the measure of the man when I wrote to him at the time of his being appointed Foreign Secretary. He had always cared deeply about the environment, and we had shared this interest and fought for listed buildings and matters of that nature. When he wrote back to me, in his own hand he added a little postcript:
On my last day at the Department, I saved a listed building.
There was a man who, in the midst of all the great affairs of State, had time not only to look after his constituents but


to realise that the quality of life in this country depends upon much more than intellectual grandeur.

Mr. Speaker: The House has paid its tribute. We turn now to public business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 shall apply to the motion relating to Textiles with the substitution of Twelve o'clock or five hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1) (b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Ashton.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I shall put the Questions on the five motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Fishing Boats (European Economic Community) Designation Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2216) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Orders of the Day — COVENT GARDEN MARKET (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

REPORT ON INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF USE OF MANPOWER

'The Minister shall at least once in each five-year period carry out a staff inspection and evaluation of the use of manpower by the Authority, after which a resumé of his report will be published in the Authority's Annual Report.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland): I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
Our purpose in moving this new clause stems from a number of debates that we had on the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee. On Second Reading I referred to the feeling of the traders and tenants in the market that there was a degree of overstaffing in the Authority. Nothing that has been presented to me since then and no argument that I have heard has convinced me one way or the other about this, but I am in no position either to confirm or refute the deeply held feelings of some of the traders and tenants in the market.
At Second Reading I also referred to a report that had been presented to the Minister by the Staff Inspection and Evaluation Branch of the Civil Service Department which carried out an inspection of the staffing of the Authority at that time. We understood that the report was in the hands of the Minister. At Second Reading I asked the Minister to tell us what was in the report and whether it contained any evidence which confirmed or refuted the views of the tenants and traders. I said then, and I still think, that it is important that the good will and co-operation of the tenants and traders should be maintained in the new Covent Garden Market so that the best use can be made of the facilities there.


At the end of the Second Reading we received no response from the Parliamentary Secretary. We did not make a fuss at the time because we knew that we could raise the matter again in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) raised the matter of the report once more in Committee on 27th January. He suggested that there were too many people in the staffing department of the Authority who dealt with such things as car passes to get into the market. Again the Parliamentary Secretary did not respond. Only when the matter was pressed again later in Committee did he refer to the report. He said:
We will consider what additional information may be made available to hon. Members on the basis of that report.'
When I asked the Minister if we could see a resumé of the report, he said:
We shall certainly consider that and let the hon. Gentleman know."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 27th January, 1977, c. 126.]
I fear that it has taken the Government an unconscionable amount of time to let us know. We had not had any response to that undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary and in view of that we felt that the only way we could raise the matter again was to table a new clause to the Bill. We felt that it was such an important issue because in the delicate state of negotiations between the Minister, the Marketing Authority and those who have to do business there, it was absolutely crucial that there should be the best understanding between the three parties so that good will could prevail in these matters. That is why we put down this new clause insisting that once every five years a staff inspection should be carried out by the Civil Service Department, after which a resumé of the report should be published in the next annual report of the Authority.
Of course we understand that we should have only a resumé because reports of this sort mention names, and it would be wrong to mention individuals either in a resumé or in the annual report of the Authority.
Since we put this new clause down things have begun to happen. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I spoke on Thursday about this matter. He wrote to me the following

day and he has given me an Answer to a Written Question, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), which will appear in Hansard tomorrow. Both the letter and the Written Answer provide a resumé of the last report. We have made some progress, but I received the letter from the Minister only at 1.30 p.m. today and the Written Answer at 3.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am grateful to the hon. Member for his handling of this matter. I am sorry that I was unable to give him the information earlier. It was available earlier, but it was not possible for me to clear it until I came back from Brussels. I regret that I could not have given it to him a few days earlier, because had I done so he might not have tabled the new clause in this form.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister. I know how busy his life must be as he is in a Ministry in which two out of three Ministers have to go regularly to Brussels. It is not as though he makes a practice of this sort of thing. In fact he is extremely good at dealing with these matters.
We have been able to see the way in which the financial affairs of the Authority are run. Early on in the resumé we are told that the Minister is satisfied that the report provides him with the assurance that he sought—namely, that there was no significant overmanning or general inefficiency in the Authority's operations.
I notice that the report shows that from the beginning of the time when the Civil Service Department moved into the market there already had been a reduction in staff numbers from 110 to 105. I am not sure whether that reduction was connected with some of the criticism made in the report, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us just what reduction was achieved.
In relation to investigations into administrative and market staff and work that is contracted out, there are criticisms in two sectors. On the administrative staff the report contains the following criticism:
The report suggests revisions to the organisational structure for the running of the


market under established conditions which could reduce administrative costs.
Secondly, on market staff the report says:
One or two areas where levels of manning could be more closely examined were indicated and my officials are examining these with the Authority.
Is the reduction between the beginning of the review and the current situation anything to do with those criticisms? It would be helpful to know to what extent those criticisms are likely to give rise to further reductions in staff.
4.0 p.m.
The Opposition are in a somewhat difficult position. We tabled the clause because we had not seen what we had been promised. Now that we have seen the resumé, we shall hear what the Minister says before we decide whether to press the matter to a vote.
Perhaps in reply to the debate the Minister will say how determined his Department is to see that the staff reductions foreshadowed in the Civil Service Report will take place.
Another extremely important question is how often the Minister expects the Civil Service Department to go into Covent Garden market to make these inquiries. He may well say that in any case these investigations will take place every five years. If that is the situation, the clause may be quite unnecessary. Since the Minister has been able to publish a resumé of this report, will he undertake to publish resumés of future Civil Service Department reports on the Market?
I am anxious to do all I can to try to improve the relationships between those who work in the market and the Authority. It grieves me to see the extent to which relations are not as good as they should be. I shall have something more to say on that matter on Third Reading. We must do all we can to improve those relationships, and we tabled this clause with that end in view.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone): I have been most enthusiastic in pursuing this hare involving possible overmanning. This enthusiasm stemmed from representations made to me by market traders and from visits I have made to the market in recent weeks. As recently as last week various allegations were repeated.
Therefore, we are most grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in sending us an early copy of the lengthy Written Answer, which indicates that some of the anxieties felt by market traders have substance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that it grieved him that relationships between the Authority and market traders were not good. It behoves us all to take every step we can to improve the situation. There are other amendments which have not been selected but which underline the common theme of anxiety expressed to hon. Members by market traders. If hon. Members had not visited the market in the early morning to see for themselves what goes on and to meet traders these matters would never have been raised in Committee or today. Therefore, although we are grateful for the Minister's courtesy and his forthcoming attitude, we are concerned that if we had not probed these matters these items would never have seen the light of day.
I hope that the Minister will reply favourably to my hon. Friend's suggestion involving at least a five-yearly staff review. We hope that the Market Authority will be under constant
scrutiny so that we may have an up-to-date picture to give to our constituents. I believe that the Civil Service Department and the departmental staff have begun to do a good job of scrutiny, and I believe that we need to maintain that pressure.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South): There are two points which I should like to mention arising from the comments of my hon. Friends. We have a clear duty as guardians of the public purse to ensure that public money is spent in the most efficient way in terms of resources—and manpower is a most important aspect. The morale of the traders is also an important consideration. We must ensure that the market works, and the only way we shall achieve that aim in the long term is by ensuring that those who work in the market are happy and carry out their work productively.
There is a specific problem that must be closely examined. The latest accounts show a deficit of £250,000 on current account, with administrative expenses at about the same level. The problem is


that the traders have no direct representation in the committees that run the Authority. They have certain discursive committees in which they can state their views, but they have no direct involvement in running the market.
The Government have given themselves power to insist that the rents and rates are raised to more economic levels, but again traders have no direct involvement in that process. They have no say in how the administrative costs may be reduced. The traders are merely asked to foot the bill. I appreciate that somebody if not the taxpayer, has to foot the bill, and I accept that the Government need the powers contained in this Bill in that respect. But the onus is on the Government to say what they intend to do to give more direct powers to the traders in running the Market and to ensure that any lingering doubts about overmanning and administrative efficiency are removed. At least we should do this for the traders and ensure that they are not landed with a lot of unnecessary administrative or manpower costs.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to deal with overmanning and what they plan to do to ensure that the traders are more directly involved.

Mr. Strang: The question of the Authority's management, including staffing, has been fairly fully discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. Hon. Members have reasonably sought information in addition to that which has been given. I recognise that there may have not been the need for this debate had we been able to provide the information sought by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in Committee.
As I have said in the Written Answer to be published in tomorrow's Hansard, the overall conclusion of the Civil Service Department report was that there is no overmanning or general inefficiency in the Authority's operations. It is true that certain proposals on staffing and organisation, for further consideration by the Authority, were made in the report, but this was to be expected since the Authority has not yet fully completed the task of settling the market complex on its new site.
The hon. Member for Westmorland rightly drew attention to the reduction in staff which has been achieved. Offhand I cannot give him the precise details of the posts involved. My understanding is that the reduction has been achieved by and large as a result of the market settling in. Some of the additional staff who were involved in the process of moving and establishing the market are now no longer necessary. If the hon. Member would like details of the posts, I should be happy to supply them.
Hon. Members will appreciate that we are talking about a management matter which is the responsibility of the Authority. It would be wrong to anticipate the loss of certain posts at this stage. It would not be appropriate to discuss the details of individual posts on the Floor of the House. That would be unfair to the staff concerned. There are grounds for believing that further economies can be made. I am convinced that we can have full confidence in the Authority's ability to secure all possible economies in manpower.
The new clause seeks to provide for a similar investigation exercise to be held at least once every five years. It would be wrong to suggest that any body other than the Authority should have responsibility for achieving reductions in staffing. To write into legislation the provision that there should be a regular investigation would be to undermine the position of the Authority. Further, to write in this five-yearly requirement would impose an unnecessary rigidity upon the structure. I can meet the desires of the hon. Gentleman by saying that we certainly do not rule out the possibility of a further look at any aspect of the Authority's operations, either by the CSD or some other appropriate agency. Obviously, it would have to be a body reasonably independent of the Authority and all the interests involved.
I can give the hon. Member for Westmorland the further assurance that if there is ever a need for such an inquiry as is suggested in the new clause and it is carried out, we shall see that the results are published in at least the form in which we have provided the information today. If we can go further than that, we shall do so. That is an undertaking that we shall have to honour without any further reminder.


4.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) raised a point concerning the involvement of the traders in decisions affecting the running of the market. We have been considering this in consultation with the traders and the Authority. A proposal has been made. The hon. Member for Westmorland has said that he wishes to deal with these matters on Third Reading so I shall not reply at any great length at this point. We are not unsympathetic to the suggestion that has been put forward. We have held meetings with the traders and the Chairman of the Authority to discuss this point among others.
Conservative Members were primarily concerned through this new clause to produce the information which, I regret to say, they did not receive until the end of last week. I hope that they will agree with me that the provisions of the clause would impose unnecessary rigidity. I assure hon. Members that we shall not hesitate to invite the CSD to investigate these operations if there is the slightest suggestion that that would be helpful. We shall make sure that the House is fully informed on all these matters.

Mr. Jopling: When we tabled this new clause we suffered a certain rush to the head of enthusiasm for its provisions, partly because of our slight irritation that we had not seen a resumé of the last report. On reflection, perhaps it would be wise to withdraw the clause. The Minister has a good point when he says that it might impose too great a degree of rigidity. He might also have been tempted to say that if this five-yearly provision were to apply to the Authority, others might argue that it should apply to other bodies. That might have led to a doubling in size of the CSD review body, which is not something we should like to see.
The Minister referred to the possibility of holding another investigation in the future. The House might expect that there would be a greater need for an investigation of this sort while there is such a large amount of suspended debt hanging over the Authority. I was glad to hear that the Department will not hesitate to carry out another review if it feels it necessary. I was also pleased

to hear the Minister say that if another review were held he would keep the House informed. That is a fairly easy promise to give because it may well be that at the time of the next review this Government will not have responsibility for such matters. The Minister may well be making a burden for someone else.
In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

REDUCTION IN THE DEBT OF THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET AUTHORITY

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) So much of the suspended debt as has not become repayable by virtue of subsection (6) below shall, except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, continue to be included in the outstanding liabilities of the Authority, shall be shown in the statement of accounts of the Authority but may be so shown as a deduction from the aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of advances made by the Minister.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Strang: I should explain that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are simply there in case the House should not accept Amendment No. 1. In Standing Committee, we were able to accept an Opposition amendment on the clear understanding that we should seek a more appropriate form of words which could be agreed between both sides of the House. We have done that, but, in the event, which, I presume, is unlikely, of Amendment No. 1 not being accepted, we shall wish to proceed with Nos. 2 and 3 in order to avoid the Bill's not making sense.
We want to ensure that the suspended debt is included in the accounts, but we think that it is necessary to do it in such a way that we are not left with a form of balance sheet which would give an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the Authority's financial position. The Authority's assets are worth, in terms of their revenue-yielding value, far less than their historic cost and should be revalued on the lower basis. The suspended debt is part of the historic cost, and if it were shown as a


liability against the lower revalued assets, we should have to balance the account by showing a loss from revaluation on the assets side.
Although in purely financial terms this would not be a major objection, it would be paradoxical. I think that hon. Members on reflection would agree that it would be discouraging to the management of the Authority and to everyone concerned with the Authority if we were to set them up with a balance sheet showing a large continuing deficit after reconstruction. We therefore propose by Amendment No. 1 that on the liabilities side the Authority will first show its total borrowings remaining after write-off, including the suspended debt. The next entry will show the suspended debt itself, and this will be subtracted from the total borrowings. The remainder, which constitutes the active debt, would then be the amount to be taken into the total of the liabilities column.
The arithmetic of this process will be clearly shown in each year's accounts. In addition, we shall require that the first set of accounts to be published in the new form will include a reconstruction statement showing the effect of the changes arising from the Bill.
What I have said is an attempt at a simple lay explanation of a fairly technical accountancy matter. I gave the Opposition some notice in the hope that they would have the opportunity to study it. I believe that the Government have fairly achieved their undertaking in Committee and that this is a sensible way to meet the points raised then, which were fair points. It will mean that, following the financial reconstruction of the Authority's accounts, they will not be persistently presented in a way which would be discouraging and paradoxical and really would not make common sense. I hope that we have come up with a formula acceptable to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead): The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the amendment, which puts the amendment carried in Committee in draftsmanlike language. Like him, I am no accountant, but we felt in Committee that the way in which it was possible, under the Bill as it stood, to slide through the accounts with merely a small footnote was undesirable. Hon. Members

will recall that I commented then on the size of the lettering used for the Chairman's name as opposed to the size used for the Minister's name, and I think that the footnote might have been even smaller.
The Minister was kind enough to send us an example of how the balance sheet might look, and it will now become crystal clear to anyone who reads the Authority's accounts that there is a fairly heavy suspended loan still outstanding. The Minister has shown, and the House recognises, that in a technical matter it is impossible for Back Benchers or, indeed, for the Opposition Front Bench, to draft an amendment that will satisfy the advice that the parliamentary draftsmen or a Minister's staff will always give him. Perhaps one day Back Benchers on both sides of the House will be provided with a tame parliamentary draftsman so that they can compete with the Government's. We welcome the rewording offered by the Government in this case, and hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

DISPOSAL OF SOME OF THE AUTHORITY'S ASSETS

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37 after ' assets', insert.
'other than those whose disposal would prejudice the movement of goods to and from the market by rail or water'.
There is a common view across the Floor of the House that the financial success of Covent Garden Market is desirable but difficult to achieve. Quite properly, the Bill says that the Authority shall make full use of its assets, including, of course, disposal of those which are not, in its view or in the view of the Minister, conducive to its sensible operation.
A factor which everyone agrees is helpful to the market in maintaining its position and becoming financially successful is its retention of bulk supplies both to the market and away from it, but particularly those coming to it by bulk and taken away by retail traders. That is particularly important to a complete market, and it is unfortunate that we are unable to discuss an amendment relating to the financing of


markets in the whole of London, as it has not been selected. But I believe that this matter is the key to the financial success of Covent Garden, otherwise time and again we shall have to vote many more millions of pounds towards the sustenance of the new market at Nine Elms.
The retention of a rail-served depot, or at least facilities for it, at the new market and retention of a riverside wharf or riverside facilities for landing goods were discussed in Committee at some length and are reported in columns 68–79 of the Hansard report of the Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary there set out the main case and was good enough to say that if we withdrew the amendment before the Committee he would look at it again to see what could be done on Report. On that basis, we are discussing the matter again.
Since that debate, I have been able to make further inquiries with particular reference to the hearings before the Select Committee on the Private Bill promoted by the Authority in the Parliamentary Session 1965–66. There is the question of the yards at Nine Elms. There is the old Nine Elms freight yard which, up to a short while ago, had many railway lines. In 1966, when it was thought that the market would move to Nine Elms, it was considered that the depot was in situ for use. For reasons not entirely clear, the main lines have been removed since then. It is true that a proposed Section 8 application to British Rail is in the Department of the Environment, but it has not yet materialised.
But when the Bill of 1966 was promoted the promoters said that one-third of the produce coming into the market at the time was rail-borne, and one of the advantages of coming to Nine Elms was that most of the produce could come direct by rail instead of arriving at various termini and then being taken to the market by lorry, thus adding to congestion. At the moment goods arriving by rail, including goods from the Continent, are transferred to lorries at Hither Green, Stratford and Paddock Wood in the middle of Kent, whereas if the railway yard had been maintained or if it were restored at Nine Elms at least some of that would be unnecessary.
4.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who is at present in a Committee, is very interested in this matter, because a great deal of traffic used to come by rail to Nine Elms from Southampton. This will shortly cease because some of the facilities at Southampton will soon be phased out, despite the Government's stated wish to keep the maximum amount of traffic on the railways.
The Minister will probably say that my amendment is not of immediate practical relevance because the land on which a rail terminal would have been built is not owned by the Market Authority. I understand that the land is owned by British Rail, although at one time the Authority had an option to purchase it. Perhaps this is one reason why there has been disagreement between the two authorities. We all deplore such disagreements, which sometimes produces cynicism among people outside the House about the co-operation between these public authorities.
The Minister may therefore reject the amendment on the ground that the Authority does not have the land to dispose of. But that should not prevent discussion or prevent the Minister from explaining why this important development did not take place. Moreover, there may be other access to the railway land which might be important in maintaining future access to the yard. I submit therefore that there is no reason why the wording of my amendment should not be in the Bill, with specific reference to both rail and water.
The case on river access is more clearcut. There is an ex-railway riverside wharf which the Authority now owns and which was originally expected to be used for the import of fruit and vegetables from the Port of London to the new market. At that time this was of great importance because large quantities of vegetables and fruit were landed at riverside wharves by lighters and were then taken to Covent Garden by lorry. Many seagoing ships from the Netherlands, and some from the Mediterranean and Madeira, came to the Port of London, and the goods were unloaded and taken to Covent Garden by lorry.


In 1966 it was very logical, proper and welcome to consider using the wharves at the new Covent Garden Market at Nine Elms. I understand from the former secretary of the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union that the union had contacted its colleagues in the Transport and General Workers' Union, which is responsible for market labour, even before the Bill was promoted, to ensure that the river traffic should continue despite any union and labour problems. They had sorted out that difficult problem. We know from our experience of the Dock Work Regulation Bill how difficult it is to iron out these problems, but I understand that that had been done. I shall show later that the Market Authority had clearly gone as far as finding out the cost of shipment by barge and coaster, and claimed that such shipment would reduce its costs.
The Minister may say that things have changed since 1966, when a considerable quantity of goods came to the Port of London, and there is less now. I do not deny that there is less river traffic now, but changed conditions have not necessarily changed the case for water access. It is true that there is less conventional traffic and more container traffic, but even if the Minister does not think that the present wharf is suitable—it has been virtually unused for 10 years—there is still a case for some form of water access to the new Covent Garden Market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) hopes to tell the House, there have been technical developments in respect of water-borne traffic which may make water access possible. It may be possible to use the ex-gasworks jetty a little way up the river.
If the amendment is accepted, some water-borne access other than the access of which I have spoken may be of advantage. In that case the wharf would be surplus to requirements and could be sold, since this would not, in the words of the amendment,
prejudice the movement of goods to and from the market by rail or water
because the alternative facilities would be there.
I turn now to the circumstances surrounding the Private Bill which came before the House in 1966. Although a Private Bill it was given some support by the Government. It is interesting to

note what the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Fred Peart, now Lord Peart, said in commending the Private Bill to the House on Second Reading:
I have considered all the sites and the evidence and I consider that in all the circumstances a market at Nine Elms, where there are road and rail communications and other facilities would be correct and sensible." —[Official Report, 24th March 1965; Vol. 709, c. 660.]
It is clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee which heard petitions against the Bill that rail and river access were big selling points. They were clearly selling points for the traders, who were somewhat reluctant to move. Various traders have given me authority to say that this was one of the major points put to them—that the new site at Nine Elms not only had better parking and mechanical handling facilities but had a railhead and a riverhead. But the same case was put to the House—this is important—and the House, in giving assent to that Bill, gave assent to a specific scheme which, among other things, had two particular features, one the railhead. the other the riverhead.
That is clear from the proceedings of the Select Committee, which I have read since our debates in Standing Committee. The records of the Select Committee were extensive, running to 21 days of oral hearings. On Day 1 counsel for the promoters, Mr. Harold Willis, was interrupted by none other than the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), who asked:
Before you leave this matter, are you going to tell us something about the rail and river facilities?
Mr. Harold Willis replied:
The railhead is shown on the next Appendix, Appendix VII. There you see the railhead and conveyor system which will bring the horticultural produce which has come by rail into the market without going on to the public roads at all. There is also, as you will see on both these plans, a riverhead marked, and it will also be the intention that a substantial part of the produce which comes from the London docks will be brought to the site by barge and brought into the market…".
That was counsel for the promoters on Day 1, at page 17 of the report.
Again on Day 1—this is page 26—counsel for the promoters drew the attention of the Select Committee to the report of the Ministry of Transport. Plainly, the promoters had got the Ministry of


Transport to agree to this scheme, because one of the great grounds of opposition to it had been the traffic congestion which might occur in what were then thought to be the inadequate roads around the market. Mr. Harold Willis quoted from the memorandum received from the Ministry of Transport, and I direct attention here to item (iii):
The location of the market at a railhead will allow rail-hauled goods to be taken straight into the market area without road movements ".
At that time in 1966, the Minister responsible for transport matters must have been a Labour Minister, and that was his view.
I quote next from the words of Mr. Willis, for the promoters, on Day 2—this is page 38 of the report—
So far as Nine Elms itself is concerned, may I summarise our case in this way? Although it is not ideal, as one can see from its shape and from the presence of the railway lines which have to be crossed, it has many great advantages. First of all, it has proximity to a railhead.
He went on to list three other points, and then said:
Fourthly, the site is sufficiently close to the river to enable part at any rate of the market produce to be brought from the docks by barge without the necessity of using public highways.
It is thus clear that, in the promoters' view, both the railhead and the riverhead were not just interesting features in the proposed movement from the old Covent Garden to the new Nine Elms site but were integral to the physical movement of goods.
On Day 5, counsel for the promoters was questioning Mr. C. M. G. Allen, then the planning officer for the Covent Garden Market Authority, and on page 20 of the report there is this exchange recorded:
(Q) There is no direct rail access to Covent Garden is there? (A) No.
(Q) How important a factor is that? What proportion of the produce coming into the market actually comes by rail? (A) Between a quarter and one-third of the total produce arrives in that way, and this all has to be carted by road vehicles from the railheads to the market.
I do not say that a quarter or a third of the produce could necessarily have arrived at that railhead, or that a similar proportion could arrive today, but I am

pointing out that that is what was said in evidence to the Select Committee, and had the railhead been open at the same time or had the railway lines which were there been used, perhaps a larger proportion could have come by rail than is coming now after a good many years of delay.
A little later on Day 5, during the course of his evidence, Mr. Allen was asked about the savings which the promoters had put in their case. A question had arisen as to the savings which would come about as a result of bringing traffic direct from the docks by barge. He replied:
As far as the docks are concerned, we estimate that something under one-third of the total traffic now coming into the docks will come to our market by river. So that is a fairly small amount in total.
Then Mr. Langdon-Davies, also counsel for the promoters, asked:
Why in that case have you put in £75,000 immediately and £80,000 later?".
I should explain that that was the saving which the promoters expected to acrue on transport costs, there being a very important saving by river. Mr. Allen's answer was as follows:
The £75,000 is based on a saving of this amount of traffic which will come by lighter; there will be, we think, a small saving on this produce, and there is also a small saving because we think that, by co-operating the docks and the haulage contractors, we can integrate our vehicles and our handling methods.
In other words, not only did the promoters think that the produce could come by water but they had done some costings, because, obviously, they would not know otherwise what savings would accrue.
4.45 p.m.
I apologise for giving that detail to the House, but I did not have these extracts from the proceedings of the Select Committee when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will recognise that the House saw the railhead and riverhead facilities as an integral part of the scheme. I do not say that the House would not have given the Private Bill a Second Reading or that the Select Committee would not have passed it as it did if these features had not been there, but it is clear that it was an important factor in the view of


the Select Committee and of the House in agreeing to give permission for the scheme that there was then a vision of operations which have not in the event come to pass.
If the restriction which I propose in the amendment is written into the Bill, the Minister will in no way be forced to go contrary to the Government's expressed view as to the use of various modes of transport. They have many times expressed the wish to keep as much traffic on rail as possible or to get back on to rail as much as possible. I suggest that an amendment along these lines could act as a goad, helping the authority to put pressure on British Rail and encouraging the exploration of possibilities of other river access, so that we could retain the original advantages which were put forward in favour of the Nine Elms site.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot speak directly for the Covent Garden Market Authority. One of the problems on this Bill is that it ought to have gone to a Select Committee so that we could get to the bottom of some of these matters of great public concern, which in many respects fall outside the House rather than within it. Unfortunately, despite Standing Order No. 40, we could not have a Select Committee, and we have had to work very much at second-hand.
I recognise the Minister's difficulty. I gave him notice of the points which I have just brought up from the earlier proceedings of the Select Committee, however, and I hope that he will be able to give a reply now, accepting that either the amendment or something like it should be inserted here or in some other appropriate place. The phraseology of the amendment may well not precisely suit his purpose. If that be so, it should be possible to deal with the matter elsewhere, and we look forward with interest to his reply.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There seems to be a good deal of mystery about the railway economics in this matter. On the one hand, we have the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others to the effect that there could be considerable savings or at least economies gained from having a railhead. The hon. Gentleman has

presented to us the vision of those who originally sponsored the Private Bill in 1966 and gave rise to the large tome which he has beside him. Plainly, there was the idea that in the move from Covent Garden to the new site the railhead would play a substantial part.
However, we also have the view of British Rail—thanks, very largely, to the hon. Gentleman's efforts—to the effect that it would be totally uneconomic to maintain any substantial railhead connected with the new Covent Garden.
My purpose in intervening is to ask the Minister to throw some light on the matter. The Government must have an independent view, independent, that is, of British Rail and of those who have been pressing the other case, which on the face of it seems perfectly logical. There has been a railhead there, and I am told that it is still used fairly economically in a semi-private capacity by at least one small operator. There are strong arguments, therefore, for at least suggesting, as the hon. Member for Newham, South has done so eloquently, that the railhead should be used, and for writing into the Bill a restriction that assets connected with the railhead should not be sold off.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the view of British Rail. I want the Minister to give the Government's independent view on whether the railhead is economic, so that we may settle this matter now. The question whether the railhead is economic has been the subject of running argument over several years, and perhaps, with the Minister's advice, we shall be able to settle it this afternoon once and for all.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams (Hornchurch): The paradoxical thing is that the old railway yard at Nine Elms was one of the more successful of the railheads to be found on the River Thames. It was only developments like the movement of cargo to the docks further down the river that led to its closure. In its heyday it was one of the most successful ones. It was used for barge transportation from St. Katherine's Dock to carry fresh produce to Covent Garden. In a historical sense, it is quite an interesting proposal that the old Covent Garden should be moved to the new site.


At that time there was a great deal of discussion with all the parties concerned, including the boroughs and the unions—the Transport and General Workers' Union, the old Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union and the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners. A firm understanding was given that there would be some waterside facility. I said in Committee that I thought there was some element of deception in that. The evidence I have, both in correspondence and in the research undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), indicates that there has been a deception. I have been authorised to say, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that the union fears there has been a most serious breach of faith. The union would like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South to do the best he can in the trying circumstances to restore the Minister's promises that were made about the use of riverside facility.
Part of the argument against the provision of a waterside facility is that the present wharfage is too small and narrow and is inaccessible because of the presence of the Nine Elms Lane. If this is the case, it is hoped that suitable provision could be developed a bit further west by the waterside on a piece of land which is at present owned by the gas board.
The land is extensive, is easily accessible, and is near the new Covent Garden site. The only problem—it is not a major one—is that the ground is anesthetised because of the toxic waste and other material which the gas board uses. It is in no way dangerous for the transportation of goods. This old gas board frontage could be developed into a suitable wharfage so that the barges could be used in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and other hon. Members have suggested. This is an important point.
We must have a solid assurance from the Minister that he will make sure that there will be a possibility of waterside provision. If he is unable to give that assurance he will find that many of his hon. Friends will be unable to support him in the Lobby.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Member talks about the desirability of encouraging water transport from one of the main docks to this series of wharves. Surely this means that there will be an extra set of handling processes between taking the produce out of a ship and getting it into the market. To put the produce on a barge and then to transfer it to some other conveyance to take it to the market will entail one extra lot of handling, compared with putting it straight on to a lorry in the first place.

Mr. Williams: That is a minor difficulty which can be overcome. I mentioned in Committee that there would be provision at the existing site to unload barges. The use of lighters in this respect is far more efficient than the use of lorries.

Mr. Spearing: One of the changes in the trade is the use of containers, particularly from Tilbury. It is possible to develop a system which would enable containers to come up en bloc to that jetty, and for the produce to be taken into the market as a complete load?

Mr. Williams: Yes, there is now a system in which the whole cargo can be floated up. There is no question at all of it being loaded alongside from a ship. The new technological developments such as SEEB and Lash could be utilised to make the operation more efficient and more cost-effective than it would be if heavy lorries were used.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): Is my hon. Friend quite sure that that is true? These containers, when they unload at the wharf, would have to be taken into the market. Unless he is proposing some kind of conveyance system, I suspect that it would be put on the lorry after all, and would entail an extra journey, even if a short one.

Mr. Williams: I shall try to avoid that. There will have to be some provision for it and I think that it could be done in such a way that it would not entail the use of lorries from the riverside to the Covent Garden site.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the solemn assurance which many of us on both sides have demanded from him.

Mr. Jay: Since my hon. Friends have raised the question of the Covent Garden market and since the site of the gasworks is in my constituency, I should like to tell the Minister that the local residents think that the Authority is failing to use much of the land on the site in the ownership of the Authority. One piece of land which is owned by British Rail has been reserved for the railhead.
During the past 10 years I have made many approaches to Ministers of various Governments in my hon. Friend's Department, both by letter and deputation, to try to get the promised decision on this railhead. Presumably, the relevant question now is not so much whether it was promised or predicted but whether it would not be reasonably economic to use it as a railway. The answer which I have been given is that British Railways would not be able to use it economically under its existing finances and arrangements and that the Government are not willing to subsidise it for British Rail use. It seems that British Rail has preserved the site for 10 years, yet no decision seems to have been reached. What are the present proposals.
I believe, and I think that Wandsworth Borough Council believes, that if it is economic to use it as a railhead, we should go ahead and do so, but that if it is not and will never be so used, it should be used for some other purpose.
From the local point of view, the most important concern is about some of the other land in the ownership of the Authority, particularly the western end of the site, which is still unused and which I think the Authority itself regards as surplus. The borough council would like to see it used for some purpose which would create employment in the neighbourhood. People living in Battersea believe that their most acute need, even more so than that for the railhead, is for more housing and for more employment, whether by industry or warehousing.
There is one particular site where a private firm would like to introduce a considerable warehouse which could give a good deal of employment. The firm is negotiating with the local authority and Covent Garden and the scheme would carry the approval of the borough council.
I hope that where land is really surplus and where some project appears, whether it is storage or industry, which would make economic use of the land and give employment locally, the Minister will encourage the Authority, both for the sake of its own finances and for the sake of employment, to be ready to reach an agreement which would allow that to go ahead. If he would give that assurance, he would comfort many people locally, whatever he might be able to say about the railhead. Whatever is done about the railhead and the river site, I hope that we can have a decision and that the land does not stand idle for another five or ten years.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I did not quite understand the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). We have been through this matter at considerable length both on Second Reading and in Committee. One of the villains of the piece has been the Wandsworth Borough Council, as hon. Members on both sides have admitted. If the Council has had a change of heart and is now suddenly anxious for the surplus land to be developed, I am delighted, but it has taken the council a jolly long time and the ratepayers should know that the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Wandsworth Borough Council.

Mr. Jay: I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind only one small part of the site, where the Authority proposed to build some luxury housing, to which there were certain objections. I do not take one side or the other on that. But the greater part of the land which is unused is in quite a different part of the site and is much more suitable for industry.

Mr. Finsberg: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has dug himself in even deeper. There are three pieces of land. On one there was to be a development of shops. Subsequently it was to be warehouses. Each time the Wandsworth Borough Council acted as a dog in a manger.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay indicated dissent.

Mr. Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman is one of my constituents. I think that the Wandsworth Borough Council


has briefed him badly on this one. I think that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) will confirm all that I have said, that the borough council has not acted very properly up to now. If it has had a change of heart, I am nappy.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. Finsberg: We shall not pursue it now: the right hon. Gentleman might look at the brief.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more about his constituency than he does about mine.

Mr. Finsberg: I sometimes wonder whether Wandsworth Borough Counci! knows much about Wandsworth.
Is the Minister satisfied that British Rail has given him the information that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I sought when we were talking about the life-expired track? Up to now, it seems that British Rail has not supplied the information. I hope that the Minister can do this, as he said he would in Committee—col. 83 onwards in the Official Report.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has said, the question of rail and river access to the market was fully discussed on Second Reading. I want to pay tribute to all concerned for the way in which this matter has been carefully examined.
In Committee, two amendments covering a similar provision were withdrawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on my offer to reconsider whether the proposed limitations should be adopted. We have gone into the matter carefully in the light of that debate to see how the situation should develop. Much though we recognise that our hon. Friends are seeking to secure positive and imaginative use of transport resources—aims which the Government share in general—nothing in the particular circumstances could justify accepting the amendment.
First, the amendment would not achieve the retention of land suitable for rail or river access if the Authority held land of that kind but were to conclude

of its own accord that it should dispose of it. The amendment of course would only restrict the Minister's reserve power of direction over the Authority.
The Authority already owns a strip of land alongside the river that could be made into a wharf, although it is rather narrow and not entirely suitable. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke of the original proposals when the move of the market was mooted ten or so years ago. He has referred to these matters again today.
My hon. Friend said that the proposals then were to have a river terminal. He thought that the potential for river-borne traffic to the market still existed and suggested that the onus was on the Authority or the Government to show why the site could not be developed as a river wharf. My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) supported him and there was a suggestion that past efforts in support of a riverhead by the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union had been frustrated.
I have looked into the background of the riverhead proposal carefully. I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends in the matter and their interest and that of other hon. Members in the possibilities for environmental improvement through greater use of London's river. The Authority indeed had hopes that a river terminal could be provided and it pursued the question, particularly in 1968, with the Freight Group of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. This group included representatives of the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners, of the Watermen, Lighter-men, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union, and of the Transport and General Workers Union.
Their conclusions were not in favour of exploring further the possibility of a riverhead on land expected at that time to come into the Authority's ownership, as it subsequently did. A variety of reasons were set out, about which I can write to my hon. Friend if he wishes. They included a number of points regarding the unsuitability of the site—that the site was too long and narrow, that, because of the need to cross Nine Elms Lane, overhead conveyors would be needed or lorries would have to make a journey of over a mile to deliver the


produce. That point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Additional points related to handling at the docks and riverhead which it was said would cause damage to sensitive and perishable horticultural produce. There were a number of other conclusions. There is no indication that any of the union representatives differed from their colleagues on the conclusions of the group.
Since then there appear to have been no new developments sufficient to alter those conclusions. Horticultural produce imported into the Port of London is much less than before and the costs of a river-head would have to be spread over a smaller volume of traffic. Use has not been made since the new market opened of the adjacent wharf—Brunswick Wharf —owned by the London Cold Storage Company—to bring fruit and vegetables by river to Nine Elms. The opportunity for traffic to come into the market by water has been there, but has not been taken.
The use of the riverside strip owned by the Authority is the subject of a planning inquiry at present. The Authority, which is seeking planning permission for housing development on the site, has given evidence that it would not be practicable or viable to have a riverhead.
I believe that my right hon. Friend also queried the use of the land for the wharfage and for river facilities and asked whether some decision could not be taken one way or the other. The inquiry will resume shortly. I do not think that I should go further in my comments about the possibility of using the land for river commerce, at least not until the inspector has reported his findings. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to adjudicate on the planning issue.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would the Minister agree that the planning inquiry to which he and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) have referred merely refers to the riverside strip of two acres, whereas we have also been considering at length the entrance area of two acres and the eastern triangle of some four acres? Is he able to say that something will be brought forward on those areas as swiftly as possible? Is it correct also to say that the inquiry will resume

in March but that a decision on this riverside strip seems unlikely before at any rate the middle of March?

Mr. Bishop: I should not like to give a detailed answer now. Perhaps I can let the hon. Gentleman have the information later. Otherwise, I shall do so in writing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, the railhead issue is of some importance. I must make it clear that the land suitable for a railhead terminal at the market is currently in the possession of British Rail and not of the Authority. The Authority of course owns the land and roads capable of linking a railhead to the market halls. A decision in favour of building a railhead rests on its economic viability and this is still being explored. The matter is by no means closed.

Mr. Jay: Can my hon. Friend give us any hope that there will be a final decision within a reasonable time?

Mr. Bishop: I should like to give some guidance on this point, but I may not be able to state an exact date.

Mr. Michael Spicer: By what body is this matter being explored? Is it being explored by British Rail again, because that is not exactly an independent body?

Mr. Bishop: I shall come to that.
I have been in touch with the Chairman of British Rail, Mr. Peter Parker, as some members of the Standing Committee were keen that I should. He has sent me a courteous and helpful reply of some clarity, as one would expect. He points out that British Rail's remit in respect of rail freight is quite specific—it must take action to ensure that the costs of its operations are fully covered by its earnings. This is what one might expect to he the case.
There is no disputing that a railhead featured in the original plans for a market, but this is not, in my view, a reason to build one regardless of cost and the purpose it would serve. British Rail has to have regard to its financial remit and, since the decision not to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, for which it had hoped to build a freight terminal at Nine Elms, it has continued to explore with the Authority and other interested parties the business opportunities offered by a market railhead.


Mr. Parker tells me simply, however, that British Rail has not identified sufficient potential to justify any investment by British Rail in rail terminal facilities and, more significantly, it has yet to establish that within the existing and foreseeable competitive situation with private road hauliers there is sufficient regular volume of traffic to enable British Rail to cover its operational costs in the running of a private railhead if this were to be built. In the absence of any undertaking from others, the Authority or members of the trade, to meet the deficit on the operations, British Rail could not at this stage, therefore, guarantee to service any railhead, even if one was available.
One should bear in mind the operating cost which would have to fall on the traders and others. Clearly, if the costs were to be sufficient to ensure viability for the market and for the railhead, it might not be economic for those who had to trade in the market itself.
5.15 p.m.
Those are the facts of British Rail's position, but the Chairman adds that it is continuing to hold the site available whilst the Authority continues consideration of whether to develop it as a private railhead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North will be pleased to know that, provided that the necessary conditions can be fulfilled, there there is the possibility of a grant under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974.
I assure the House that the Authority is active in this consideration and that we shall be ready to consider carefully any proposals which it may bring forward. I stress that the door is not shut on the possibility of a railhead and anyone and anybody who can come forward to enhance the prospects for a viable project will be welcomed.
I have dealt at length with the background to the river and railhead questions. I hope that this serves to illustrate that we would not exercise any power over the disposal of assets owned by the Authority without the most careful and detailed consideration.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The Minister did not answer my question about who is exploring the economics of the railhead. Is it his Department or another Depart-

ment? In connection with that I asked him to state the Government's view on the matter. The two questions are related. Are we just getting British Rail's point of view, or are we getting the Govern. ment's point of view?

Mr. Bishop: The responsibility for pursuing the matter of the railhead is joint. First, British Rail owns the land and it is now actively concerned in considering the economics of the matter and whether it would be viable in relation to the need of the users of the market. I have mentioned that there is a possibility of a grant under the 1974 Act. I am sure that the Authority and the Government, in partnership, as we must be increasingly in the future, will bear in mind the possibility of a railhead and will weigh its economic prospects against the need it could fulfil. This is a triangular responsibility in which we have actively engaged in the past and in which we shall be continuing.
Clause 2 is a necessary reserve power for the Minister in pursuance of the need to explore every possibility of improving the Authority's finances. Given that it provides both for consultation with the Authority and for the Minister to be satisfied that any disposal of assets would facilitate the discharge of the Authority's proper functions, there are adequate safeguards already to provide that the Authority will not be directed to dispose of assets useful or potentially useful to the Market. Therefore, we do not feel able to accept the restrictive nature of the amendment. It would impose a restriction on the Minister without imposing one on the Authority. That will be taken care of by the very close liaison between all the authorities concerned.
I have been in touch with British Rail and pursued this matter with it in the light of the representations made by hon. Members. The Chairman of British Rail is well aware of the views expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Authority itself will be sensitive to these points.
The House would be wise not to pursue the amendment. I have given assurances that we are very much in sympathy with the desire to have these transport facilities in view of the financial situation facing the market.

Mr. Spearing: The debates on this subject throughout the various stages of the Bill are a measure of the anxiety and disquiet that exist about the way in which this matter has been handled from 1966 onwards. British Rail says that it is not profitable to operate into Covent Garden Nine Elms despite the fact that there are rails there. If it is not profitable now, was it profitable in 1966? The promoters of the Private Bill then said that it was. Either they were wrong or British Rail is wrong.
Quite clearly, something went wrong either then or between then and now. The House does not know what it was and I was not told at the time. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has said, we still do not know why British Rail took the rails up in the yard which was its own land and which could have been used, as Stewarts Lane was around the corner until recently.
Mention has been made of the TCCL for London. If the Authority claimed that it would cost £80,000 less in 1966, why did it not go ahead and do it? There still seems to be some mystery about the matter.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that the amendment will not prevent the Authority from selling off the lands prejudicial to the movement of goods by rail and water. That may well be true. He then says that the constraints introduced by the amendment would be on the Minister. Surely that is a proper thing for the House to place constraints do. Surely it is proper for the House to place constraints on the Minister. It may be that the form of the amendment and the form of the Bill do not enable us to place constraints on the Authority, but we should do so in respect of the Minister.
Is my hon. Friend saying that the Authority should be able to sell off land that is useful for that purpose but that he will not direct it to do so and that the provision contained in the amendment should not be written into the Bill? It seems that that is what he is saying.
As a symbol of our dissatisfaction not only with the Minister but with the way in which the matter has been handled right from the start and the disinclination of my hon. Friend to have a fairly reasonable limitation of his power placed upon

him, my hon. Friends in London and I wish to have a symbolic demonstration of our feelings on this matter. We make this demonstration in respect of the way in which the matter has been handled in the past and the sort of replies that we have not had from all the statutory authorities and, I am sorry to say, from my hon. Friend.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

But no Member being willing to act as a Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The examination of this Bill in Committee was completed in three sittings. It is a short Bill and the speed with which the Committee carried out its work in no way indicates that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I were given an easy time. Rather it demonstrates the industry and constructive attitude that all members of the Committee have shown, and I am grateful to them. They discussed the Bill in great detail and as a result the Government's intentions must now be clearer.
The Bill was amended in Committee and has been further amended on Report. I am sure that these changes, for which we are grateful, represent improvements both in clarity and substance. They provide, first, for the way in which the suspended debt under Clause 1 will be shown in the Authority's statement of accounts in a clear and unambiguous manner. Secondly, a desirable degree of extra flexibility has been introduced into the operation of the Minister's power under Clause 2 to direct the Authority to dispose of its assets.
Although the Authority is deeply in debt to the Minister, the country and the taxpayer, both sides of the House have acknowledged their considerable achievement helped by the traders in successfully moving the country's premier wholesale horticultural market from the centre of London across the river to Nine Elms. The move has provided great planning opportunities for central London, which I am sure will be turned to good account.
In the Bill we seek to resolve, by writing off part of the accumulated debts, the financial problems attributable uniquely to that move. To give the further assistance that is essential for the time being, the greater part of the remaining debts will be suspended. But in recognition of contributions on such a scale from the taxpayer the Government expect the users of the market to begin contributing towards the capital costs of the market as well as ensuring that the market revenues will cover its running costs. That completes the package of which I and my hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading and I believe the whole House will accept it is a reasonable expectation in all the attendant circumstances.
With these contributions, from the Government and the users of the market, and with the co-operation of all concerned, I am sure that the Authority will have the opportunity to give the market a successful future. I can assure the House that the Ministry, the Government, the Authority and those who are concerned with transport, especially British Rail, will be bearing in mind many of the points that have been made in the House and in Committee.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Jopling: We are grateful to the Minister of State for stating the Government's attitude at this stage. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has not felt that there has been any time wasting during our proceedings. As I think he knows, we have not had that in our minds in any shape or form.
We hope that the provisions of the Bill will set off the new Covent Garden Market on a thoroughly sound basis. As we said on Second Reading, the history of the new market so far has been one of frequent interventions of fate, misfortune, delay and events beyond the control of those who operate the market. Now that the active working capital of the market is limited to £7 million, I hope that the future of the market is set fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) told us at one stage that if we thought we had reached the end of the road, we bad another think coming. I hope that he is wrong, and

that we shall not have to have other Bills of this sort.
But if we have the financial side of the market right, I am sure that no hon. Member will disagree when I say that that is only half of getting the whole operation right. The other half is to make sure that human relations between those who organise the market and those who work in it are correct.
This brings us back to where we left off after our debate on the new clause this afternoon. I said then that I was grieved to have evidence of relationships that were not as good as they should be between the Authority and tenants and traders. We have already discussed one of the tenants' grievances, the allegation of excessive staffing. I hope that as a result of what we have heard during these debates the tenants will feel that there is not the extravagance over staff that they had thought. I hope that we have been able to assist the Authority and the working of the market in general by laying some of the ghosts that have been in the minds of some on both sides.
I particularly welcome the Government's latest proposal to set up a small high-level working party composed of tenants, market workers and other market users to try to increase the involvement of the trade with the operations of the market. I have purposely used those phrases, which are taken from a letter recently written by the Parliamentary Secretary to the tenants' association and sent to me by the association. It was a letter about future human relations within the market.
That idea is good, but I am sad to see the way in which the association has reacted to it. It has written to the Minister during the past week saying, among other things, that it does not feel inclined to sit under the chairmanship of the chairman or general manager of the Authority, and stating a number of conditions under which it wishes the working party to operate. I dare say that with several of those conditions the tenants are on a fair point, but I hope that over the weeks ahead good will will be shown by both the tenants and the Authority in trying to thrash out a way of operating the market now that we in


Parliament have reorganised its capital so that it will go on to be an outstanding success.
The tenants say that they particularly want the working party's terms of reference to include the power to the wholesalers of which the Authority should be aware. I do not know to what extent it is already aware of the profitability of those who have businesses in the market. I remember the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) vigorously nodding his head in agreement at one stage in our debates when I said that the important thing was to keep the market full and to keep it buzzing. We have said that repeatedly. If there are arrangements that make it impossible for the businessses within the market to be profitable, the market cannot thrive.
The tenants also say that they want consideration to be given to the leasing of the market to the association. If that can be done at a saving of costs and more efficiently, I hope that the Government will not rule it out. Let us see whether it is possible, though I am not convinced that it is.
The tenants also want to discuss the possibility of a joint operating committee
of the Authority and their Association. I was surprised to read in the next sentence:
The view is held that the Covent Garden Market Authority was established to build and start off a new market. This task is now complete, and they should now stand down.
It seems to me slightly illogical to say that after proposing a joint operating committee of the Authority and the association, but I leave that for future negotiations to sort out.
There is an unfortunate degree of ill-will between the Authority and the association. I have had letters from the association and dealings with it which show that to be true. Indeed, the association asked us to table an amendment to delete Sections 28 and 29 of the 1961 Act and Sections 26, 28, 31 and 37 of the 1966 Act. That would effectively take away nearly all the powers of the Authority to raise money and operate the market. It would cause the total collapse of the Authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone tabled that amendment, but I suspect that he would not have pushed it to a vote. He perhaps put it down to raise some of the points I am trying to raise now.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Wells indicated assent.

Mr. Jopling: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees. As his amendment was ruled out of order, I hope that he will use this debate to raise other points in similar vein.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers was outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore it must be outside the scope of a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Jopling: I of course accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the general matter of capital for the market's future operations and its general arrangements are within the scope of this debate.
I do not believe that it is right to scrap the Authority at this stage, and I do not feel that it is the mood of the House that it should be scrapped. The general view on both sides of the House on Second Reading was that the Authority had done a good job in difficult circumstances. I believe that the House would feel it unwise at this stage even to consider scrapping the Authority in view of the large amounts of public money that we are putting into it through the provisions of the Bill.
I realise that the tenants' attitudes may well have something to do with the fact that there is a discussion going on about the proposal, which we have talked about throughout our debates, that their association should raise £500,000 a year to pay for the operations of the market. It is generally agreed in the House that the current attitude of the tenants may be largely promoted by the Authority's the current attitude of the tenants may be extra income.
It may be recalled that I made my position on that extra £500,000 a year quite clear on Second Reading and it is worth repeating the statement that the Authority sent to us about the raising of this money. I quote what the Authority


said, which is what I read out at Second Reading:
The provision of some extra £0·5 million per annum is necessary to enable the Authority to break even with an active capital of approximately £7 million immediately after reconstruction. The whole of this active capital will be serviced by the income from Market Towers and the extra revenue will in effect be needed to enable the market to cover its running costs. Even with this extra revenue the market (as distinct from Market Towers) will be making no real contribution towards the capital invested in its facilities.
I said on Second Reading that I felt that it was hard to argue against the raising of the extra £500,000 and I still think that. I hope that the tenants will agree to raise such a figure but perhaps the exact amount could be negotiated. But the general principle is right, and I hope that the whole issue will soon be settled.
We have in the new Covent Garden Market the possibility of an outstanding success. The change has now become bedded in, and we have now reconstructed the capital structure. Provided that those who administer the market and who work in it can agree among themselves and organise a good working arrangement for the future, I hope that this will be the last that we shall hear of the need for Parliament to intervene in the affairs of the market for a long time.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South): I rise to support the Bill—although I am not happy about it—because that is something that we must all do this evening. I was involved with the inception of the Covent Garden Market Authority in about 1961 when the local planning authority—the old Battersea Borough Council—had to decide whether to welcome the proposal for the market to be transferred to Battersea.
I do not want at this stage to usurp the duties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who has a sound knowledge of and good intentions for his constituency, but I have lived in the borough all my life and I was a member of the local authority for many years. I have watched with great interest the progress of the Authority.
Now that we have reached this watershed in its progress I want to reiterate what has been said tonight by other hon.

Members—that the Authority should use its assets to their full advantage. The assets are of considerable value. I do not want the Authority to embark on building gantries across Nine Elms Lane to the river at a cost of millions of pounds.
I am quite happy with the way in which the market is now being run, and I do not want to see slow-moving traffic coming up the river and produce going bad before it can be unloaded. I do not want to envisage expenditure of that nature. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) does not agree with me, but that is how I view it. Our road transport system adequately serves the transport of goods from the Channel ports on the South-East Coast. Produce can reach the market in just a few hours and be sold fresh.
The flower market has a five-acre expanse of territory, but it is used for perhaps only six to eight hours a day. As I have said so many times during the course of the Bill, both in the Chamber and in Committee, the whole of this area of Battersea is becoming derelict and during the hours that the market is not operating, nothing goes on there. I should like to see the Authority use its assets, that is, the empty space near the river, the site under West Bank and the flower market. The area is big enough for use during evenings and weekends as an indoor running track and it could also be used for a boxing arena.
I make this suggestion because the Convent Garden Market needs revenue-producing schemes. The whole of the market organisation should be devoted to producing revenue so that it can pay its way. This part of Battersea needs rejuvenation, and I look to the Covent Garden Market Authority to do something about it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Wells: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) so that I can tell him that when I go to the flower market tomorrow morning—if Hansard has reached the traders before me—I shall have my pants taken off and it will all be because of him. There can be no doubt that his words of enthusiam and zeal will be taken woefully amiss in the market.


These people pay what they consider to be high rents for exclusive rights over their premises for 24 hours a day. The hon. Member is not quite right in saying that the premises are used for only five or six hours a day. They are used for rather longer and many traders leave goods there all day. They do not want to have to start moving goods in and out of the shops around the perimeter. The traders cannot possibly be expected to clear out of the market for an indoor running track or some other seven-day wonder that would, in any case, have to be financed by the ratepayers in the hon. Member's constituency. No doubt the hon. Member would go to the Minister for Sport to ask for some Government money. Such a scheme would not be a profit-making concern.
One of the most important themes that has run through all our debates on the Bill has been the argument about whether pilfering has been reduced since the market moved to Nine Elms from the old Covent Garden. I think that it has, but if one started to allow the public into the compound, pilfering would soar again. and that is quite unthinkable.
I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, South in pooh-poohing the idea of rotting vegetables coming into the market by water. The thoughts expressed in the last debate were—

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wells: No. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke for 20 minutes at the beginning of the debate and he has had a second bite at the apple, so he must now leave it alone. He knows that I agree with him about inland waterways, but I have seldom heard a knowledgeable hon. Member propound so much junk in 20 minutes.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South made the point that goods come into the market from the South of England adequately by lorry, but he must know that the population of Kent is up in arms about heavy lorries going through lanes—to take not English produce to market, but produce that has been spending a little weathering time in cold storage. The whole population of Kent is very worried about this problem.
I paid careful attention to what the Minister said in the previous debate about consultations with Mr. Peter Parker of British Rail. I remind the House that the Channel Tunnel project may come to life again. If it does, the railhead could also come to life and the hon. Member for Newham, South would be all right with his rail project, but not with his proposals for transport by water.
It is up to the hon. Member for Battersea, South to talk to his local authority about its being more willing to meet the wishes of the Authority in granting planning permissions. If the Authority could get planning permissions more easily and sensibly, many of its financial difficulties would disappear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) dealt with the letter sent by the tenants to the Minister. He said that they wanted the Authority to have the power to investigate their profitability. This is an important point. Their businesses are not excessively profitable. Every day we see journalists of the tear-jerking sort pointing out that the poor old housewife is paying astronomic sums for vegetables and that the grower receives little for them, so therefore someone in the middle must be making huge profits. Vegetables that are sold the whole way carry an element of profit, at each stage, but profit and profitability are different things and we must bear in mind the steep overheads and high costs in the trade.
I declared an interest on Second Reading and I take it that that declaration still holds good. I am actively engaged in the horticulture business and, generally speaking, one expects the grower to get one-third of the ultimate price of vegetables, with the wholesaler and the retailer also each getting a third. The wholesalers collectively get a third and the people operating in the market work on commission. Sometimes two or three people have to share one-third of the final price of fruit and vegetables. The claims of emotional journalists that vast profits are being made in vegetables is not true. The lack of profitability of these businesses is an indication of the real situation. I hope that the Minister will go along with the request of the tenants.
The Minister and the Authority have told us that all three sections of the market are virtually full—a figure of between


90 per cent. and 94 per cent. has been mentioned. But some of the smaller traders have told me that one by one they are going out of business. The fact that their places are being taken over by someone else and that therefore it can still be said that the market is full should not hide the fact that the number of independent traders is reducing considerably. I am convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland has set the right note for this debate and that we shall need to build on a better relationship between the Authority and its tenants of all sorts.
The grower—wholesalers were particularly aggrieved about a union matter last year. I hope that all sectors of the market can come to their hon. Members, to people such as myself, who happen to be their friends, or officially to the Ministry, with their grievances and grouses and that they will be listened to with greater sympathy than in the past. To them the £500,000 that we have bandied about is a matter of great "aggro", yet it hardly appears in the Bill at all. Its existence is masked in Clause 3—hence the rather way-out amendments that I put down at the behest of the tenants. They are anxious to have their grievances aired in the House. It is difficult to do so and to remain in order, but I know that the Minister and his Department are sympathetic and I hope that they will go along with the thoughts of "Chairman Jopling" and do what they can to ensure a better consideration of grievances in future.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford): My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) has ably set out a number of the points arising from the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has underlined the intensity of feeling in various sectors of the market's operation. I wish to emphasise the point that I raised in Committee. There has been a dramatic extension of ministerial power by this Bill. Insensitive handling of this power by the Minister could exacerbate the difficulties that may be faced by traders in the day-to-day operations of the market.
The traders have to feel that they can continue with confidence to base their operations upon Covent Garden. The

Bill has been used to make sure that they can do so, but I have no doubt that if they find themselves unable to carry on, they will not hesitate to move their operations to more hospitable climes, such as Spitalfields or Western International. They might find that they have to abandon the South-East and move to Birmingham or Manchester.
Such a move would not be a great help to the consumer or the producer and the tenant might suffer, but we must remember that his first duty to himself is to survive in business. If the powers of the Minister are insensitively exercised, that will make life that much more difficult for the trader and everyone else involved in horticulture.
I am sorry that we had to have this Bill at all. I hope that the work that we have put into it will enable the Authority to operate profitably and confidently in future, and I earnestly hope that we shall have no such measure brought to the House again.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am sure that most hon. Members will share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and that we are sorry that the Bill had to come before the House at all. I view with great concern the prospect of yet another public body requiring another £13 million to suspend its debt provisions. Coming from a horticultural constituency, I would have preferred that £13 million, if it is to be given to the industry, to be given direct.
But the more one looked at the Bill in Committee and elsewhere, the more one came to the conclusion that the Government did about the best they could. The view that the public had in effect landed the Authority with this vast debt—and therefore the public should in measure bail it out—was broadly accepted.
The way that the Government have done it has also been accepted. Instead of bailing the Authority out completely, they have at least written a large amount of that debt into the Bill in the form of suspended debt. I am glad that in Committee we played a part in ensuring that that will be clearly marked in the accounts. I am glad that the Government in their wisdom have written this provision into the Bill.


I agree with the Government that a large measure of the current debt will from now onwards be met by those who are operating in the Market. That brings us right to the nub of the problem raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Maidstone (Mr. Wells). The Government must face the fact that by seeking to raise this extra money direct they caused the problem. I suspect the problem arises out of the general morale issues that we have been discussing. I am therefore glad that the Government are now giving attention to the whole subject of greater involvement by the tenants in the management of the market.
However, the problem also seems to centre around profitability. I said in Committee that sometimes traders were working on profit margins of about 1 per cent. That figure was not challenged. That was the average sort of figure given to me on the basis of turnover. It begs the question "Why do they not put up their prices?"
The immediate problem one faces is that there are competitive markets such as Spitalfields and Western International. The problem faced particularly in the commission business is that if the traders put up their prices to any kind of commensurate level required to meet the extra costs that they will have to pay to keep the market going, they may well be put out of business. That would destroy the whole purpose of the exercise.
Having made that observation on behalf of the traders, I would endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland that the traders cannot have it completely their own way. As is usual with Oppositions, in Committee to some extent we battled on their behalf. We have certainly made the point, which the Government seem to have accepted, about the greater involvement which the traders will have to have in the management of the market.
But the traders have to recognise that the public cannot go on carrying this burden. If the original warnings given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone in Committee are true, we shall simply be back with another Bill in a few years' time.
We shall have to think about whether the public can for ever bail out the market. It is one thing for us to have written off a debt that was largely not of the Authority's own making, but it will be quite another if any Minister has to introduce this kind of Bill again.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Bill is now very much clearer than when we started. The Minister has ensured that the Authority will specify in its annual report and accounts the different types of loans so that we shall see which are annuity loans and which are maturity loans. We have an assurance that a Civil Service Department or some other staff review will be carried out when necessary and that the House will be told the conclusions.
These debates have enabled the House to focus attention upon the lack of use of the surplus assets. If those assets were brought into use, perhaps some of the suspended loan could be written back into the accounts and repaid more swiftly than might otherwise happen. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will look at this matter on a continuing basis to make sure that no one holds up the sensible disposal of assets.
I hope that pressure will be put upon the Department of the Environment to come to speedy decisions when planning appeals come to the Minister for his decision. Otherwise we agree that the Bill is now a good Bill and we hope that it will mean that the Market can get on with its primary job, which is serving the customer.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I hope the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will not take offence when I say that obviously one cannot agree to put pressure on any Department. But certainly we recognise the need for decisions on these matters to be taken as early as possible.
A point raised by a number of hon. Members concerned the negotiations between the Authority and the traders. I very much regret that difficulties have arisen in the negotiations between the Authority and the tenants of New Covent Garden to settle arrangements for the additional revenues which form an


important part of the package of measures for the viability of the market.
As I told hon. Members during the third Sitting of the Standing Committee, I had that very morning met the market tenants. They made some cogent points on the possibilities of economies in running the market, and the lack, as they saw it, of a forum in which they could pursue these matters. As a result of that meeting I met Sir Samuel Goldman to discuss what could be done to meet some of those points. We agreed that the Authority should set up urgently a small high-level working party with tenants, workers and users to examine the day-to-day operating of the market. This suggestion would provide much of what the tenants had sought in respect of greater involvement in the operation of the market and the opportunity to put forward suggestions for savings in operating costs.
I therefore put this to the tenants, and also said that I would consider it not unreasonable that the trade should share in any savings of running costs that might flow from a reduction of services. I asked the tenants to resume discussions with the Authority on this basis. Unfortunately, the tenants' representatives have not accepted this offer, and have suggested a working party that would go very much wider.
While I think that there may be something to be said for a wide-ranging examination of marketing arrangements generally in the longer term, that inevitably will take time and the need to get the market on its financial feet is urgent and critical. I would therefore once more urge upon the tenants' representatives the need to look again at our earlier suggestion and get together with the Authority to seek immediate economies in the operation of the market and to devise arrangements for its sound financing.
I have already recognised that the traders are working on narrow margins, and I would not expect them to be able to absorb the whole extra cost themselves. But, even with the write-off and suspension of debts proposed in this Bill, the

market's expenditure will continue to exceed its revenue, and a contribution from the trade is an essential element in the market's viability.
After all, the public purse will be contributing by far the greatest part, and it would not be right to the taxpayers to ask them to pay a continuing subsidy to the market over and above the continuing cost to the Exchequer of the interest forgone on the suspended debt. Moreover, our package of proposals was designed to be equitable between traders at Covent Garden and those at other markets. A further continuing subsidy to Covent Garden would unbalance that equity. I trust, therefore, that the tenants will work with us and the Authority to help secure the future for this market which is of particular importance to the tenants themselves. It is fair to say that all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have implicitly endorsed the Government's proposal in this regard and have taken the view that we must reach a situation where there is agreement between the traders and the Authority on these points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry), who has taken a deep interest in these matters because of his close knowledge of the area, said, and the vast majority of hon. Members agreed, that he regretted the need for the Bill. We regret the need for a Bill which writes off £13 million and provides for the suspension of a maximum of £25 million, but there was no other way of dealing with the matter, as the arguments in Committee made clear, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) expressed that view today.
If anything, Opposition Members have been a little pessimistic about the future. The short-term difficulty of the negotiations between the Authority and the traders must be settled. If it is not settled, there can be no continuing Authority. These difficulties will, I think, be overcome, but, more important, we are establishing a framework for a successful operation at Covent Garden. Let us remember that we are talking about increasing the throughput and efficiency so that value added may be created to enable the Authority to prosper and to pay


off the suspended debt and to enable the traders to secure a fair return on their investment.
I believe that this restructuring provides that opportunity, and I am sure that

with determination and co-operation on all sides it will be achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TEXTILES

[Commission documents: S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles:


S/334/76
…
EEC/Macao agreement on trade in textiles.


S/383/76
…
EEC/Korea agreement on trade in textiles.


S/384/76
…
EEC/Singapore agreement on trade in textiles.


S/504/76
…
EEC/Malaysia agreement on trade in textiles.


S/644/76
…
EEC/Japan agreement on trade in textiles.


S/1203/76
…
EEC/Portugal interim agreement.


R/1928/76
…
Origin rules—Mauritian textiles.


R/1879/76
…
Tariff quota for certain handwoven fabrics.


S/1318/76
…
EEC/Brazil agreement on trade in textiles.


S/1325/76
…
EEC/Colombia agreement on trade in textiles.


S/1479/76
…
Tariff quotas on cotton yarn, man-made fibres, outer garments, etc., from Malta.


S/1601/76
…
Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Singapore.


S/1602/76
…
Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Malaysia.


S/1633/76
…
Tariff quota for certain textile products from Turkey.


S/1757/76
…
Imports of certain textile products originating in Macao.


S/1984/76
…
EEC/Egypt agreement on trade in textiles.


S/205/77
…
EEC/Portugal agreement on trade in textiles.]

6.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles.
Most of the documents we are to consider today relate to bilateral restraint agreements which the EEC has concluded under Article 4 of the GATT Multifibre Arrangement—the MFA. I should like to concentrate on this very important instrument, which has governed international trade in textiles since the beginning of 1974.
As hon. Members will recall, there have been special arrangements for textiles since the early 1960s, when the exceptional problems of the textile industry were first acknowledged internationally. These earlier arrangements, to which the United Kingdom was a party, related only to cotton. But as the industry became less preponderantly based on cotton, and as it became clear that the other sectors were subject to essentially the same risks as the cotton sector, the present MFA covers not only cotton but also wool, man-made fibres and knitwear. Hence the "Multi" in its title.
One of the MFA's principal objectives is to ensure the orderly and equitable development of international trade in textiles. In other words, a balance had to be struck between the interests of the importing and the supplying countries. The underlying bargain in the MFA is that supplying countries accept the continuation of discriminatory restrictions against themselves, while in return importing countries undertake not to cut back

existing trade levels, to guarantee a minimum rate of liberalisation of restrictions which can be justified under the MFA, and to phase out restrictions which cannot be justified.
Under Article 4 of the MFA, the EEC —which signed on behalf of all the member States—has now concluded 13 bilateral agreements—with India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, which were considered in detail in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments last year; with Macao, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan, which have already been discussed briefly in a debate on the European Community last June but which we are considering again today; with Brazil, Colombia and Egypt, which we are to consider today for the first time; and with Yugoslavia and Romania. Unilateral restrictions have also been imposed on Taiwan, which is not an MFA signatory.
These 13 agreements mean that we are now able to restrict imports of sensitive products from all the main low-cost suppliers. As a result of the agreements concluded so far, there are for the United Kingdom no fewer than 89 quotas which cover three-quarters of our imports from the countries concerned. Most of these quotas allow us to maintain our previous quotas on cotton products, and to extend them to other fibres and to knitwear. In terms of coverage, therefore, there is no doubt that the textile industry enjoys a greater degree of protection than in the past. There are safeguard provisions in the agreements and in the MFA itself which allow new restraints on products which have come under threat since the agreements were signed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House what progress his Department has made in negotiations with India on the question of that country importing into this country, under a handloom classification, shirts which were undoubtedly machine-made? Is not this undermining the already serious position of the United Kingdom shirt industry? What is the state of the negotiations that the hon. Gentleman's Department is having with the trade department of the Indian Government?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is over-eager. I assure him that I shall deal fully with that point, but I do not intend to bring it forward in my speech. He can interrupt me towards the end of my speech when I touch on it. Whether the shirts were hand-made is an issue. We ensured that a proper sample was examined very closely by the Shirley Institute to ascertain to what extent there might have been evasion of the concession made in that respect.
We have made good use of these provisions to protect some of our most sensitive products —such as in the case of knitted shirts from Macao, Thailand, the Philippines, and India. Further consultations are also being sought on knitted shirts from Pakistan and on jackets and blouses from Macao, jackets from Malta and undergarments from Spain.
Our scope for action is not limited to the MFA. We have always made it clear that we are ready to consider selective action where this is justified, and in the last two years restrictions have been introduced on suits from certain East European countries and on shirts and undergarments from China. We keep a close watch on all imports of textiles and clothing, and in the last case I have mentioned—undergarments, or pyjamas, as it was, from China, for which there was a significant contract in train for perhaps more than 1 million pieces— we introduced a control before the industry had noticed that there was a problem.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby): Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell the House what stage his Department's investigation has reached into the complaint made by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation against the dumping of clothing in the United Kingdom by East European countries which was officially

recognised by his Department last September but was originally lodged in March last year?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend must be telepathic, because I was about to mention that point; it is dealt with in the next paragraph of my speech. The fact that quantitative restrictions exist does not prevent us from taking action where we are satisfied that goods are coming in at dumped prices. There are quantitative restrictions in respect of East European suits, but we are now talking about the question of dumped prices.
During the last few months the Department has been investigating, at the request of the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, the prices of suits from Eastern Europe. This is one of the most complex cases which we have had to deal with for a long time. Six countries have been involved and the range of materials and of styles has been very large. I assure the House that it makes it extremely difficult, within the constraints of the legislation, to effect a case which will, if necessary, stand up in court. However, I am happy to say that we are now in the ultimate stages of the investigation and are on the point of concluding discussions with the exporting countries. I therefore hope to be in a position to make an announcement this week which will substantially, I believe, ease the concern of our clothing industry.
I think it is fair to say, therefore, that within the framework of the MFA, and outside it, we have done more than most people realise to protect our industry. But, as the Member of Parliament for a textile constituency, I am the first to insist that there are no grounds for complacency. Despite all our efforts, the textile industry is going through a very bad time at present and it faces increasing import penetration, which is rising inexorably as the existing low-cost suppliers expand their production, often using the latest technology, and as new suppliers appear on the scene. Import penetration in textiles and clothing has risen from 17 per cent. in 1973 to 24·7 per cent. in the third quarter of 1976. Imports are still increasing at a much faster rate than domestic consumption. That, I believe, is a clear reason why we can have no complacency about the present situation.
Against this background the MFA, as it was negotiated to come into force in


January 1974, has provided a valuable framework. But the Government are well aware of its deficiencies.
First of all, as we have seen only too clearly over the last two years, the MFA does not provide adequate protection for our domestic industry during a recession. The importing countries receive a guaranteed annual growth rate of 6 per cent. in good times and bad. This means that the brunt of the recession is borne by the domestic producer. A second, related point is that, leaving aside the highly cyclical nature of the industry, long-term growth prospects now seem considerably less rosy than when the MFA was negotiated. The 6 per cent. minimum growth rate is far too high in relation to the prospective growth of the domestic market. Consequently, we are getting levels of import penetration in particular sectors which are, frankly, unacceptable, and with more in prospect unless the MFA provisions are changed.
Another serious weakness, which I know many hon. Members are concerned about, is the base level at which the quotas are fixed. As I said earlier, part of the MFA bargain was that there should be no cut-back on previous trade levels. This principle is an understandable one, but in practice it has worked to the serious disadvantage of the importing countries. The reason for this is the protracted bilateral negotiations which took place between the EEC and its supplying countries. These were difficult negotiations which inevitably took time to complete, and trade during the negotiation period build up so that the base levels, when the agreements were eventually signed, were fixed at artificially high levels, as I am sure everyone will agree.
A further weakness of the present MFA is the lack of an adequate safeguard to deal effectively with new suppliers of sensitive products. At the moment these have to be picked off one by one, as in the list of supplementary restraints I mentioned a moment ago. This permits a degree of control, and I do not underestimate it, but it is an unsatisfactory and cumbersome way of dealing with a constantly recurring problem.
I have described what I regard as the main shortcomings in the present arrange-

ments. There are others. Hon. Members will want to know what we propose to do about them. I know that many people have felt and still feel that the immediate and best answer would be imitation of the kind of action which Canada has taken recently on clothing imports. Nevertheless, I believe that there are significant differences between the Canadian situation and our own. I do not rule out such action, but I say merely that we have to take account of the special situation of Canada.
First, we have a considerable degree of protection against a sharp increase in imports through the 13 MFA bilateral agreements. Canada was not protected in this way and, as a result, imports rose very rapidly—in volume terms by 52 per cent.—in the first half of 1976, whereas in the case of the United Kingdom the figures for the whole of 1976, and not just for the first half, were increases of 13 per cent. for clothing and 14 per cent. for textiles. The Canadians have also taken action under Article XIX of the GATT, which means under the GATT Code that they face the risk of retaliation or demands for compensation. Both these are written in the code.
Another problem in imitating such action at present is the effect that this would have on the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. As hon. Members will know, the present MFA expires at the end of this year, and the participating countries must decide whether to renew, modify or terminate it. I have said a great deal about its shortcomings. None the less I am convinced that a suitably strengthened MFA would provide the best hope of reconciling the legitimate interests of the importing and the exporting countries. I know, too, that this is not only my view but is that of the industry itself.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East): If my hon. Friend is saying that "suitably strengthened" means that he will remove all the faults that he has just catalogued, I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House. But can he say whether the Government will go all out to see that the faults to which he referred are removed from the new agreement?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) also appears to be reading my speech. I


am just coming to the objectives and the way that we intend to proceed in these discussions. we intend to take action which we believe will substantially affect the deficiencies which now exist in the MFA.
These objectives are, first, to secure modifications to the MFA which will enable us to protect our producers against cumulative disruption—that is, individually small increases in imports from a large number of sources. Under the present MFA, these new suppliers have to be dealt with one by one. We are now proposing a new safeguard measure which will allow the introduction of a single quota to deal with all disruptive or potentially disruptive imports-of a sensitive product—that is, one where import penetration rates are very high.
Secondly, we want to change the MFA rules so that growth rates can be adjusted downwards to take account of the circumstances and prospects of the domestic industry. The Community has now accepted the principle that growth rates should vary in inverse proportion to the rate of import penetration. In other words, when import penetration is high the growth rate would be reduced accordingly. The mechanics of such a system—and these are proposals—would probably involve some kind of sliding scale which would be operated by the Community.

Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale): In view of the fact that my hon. Friend has said that he hopes to achieve growth rates varying inversely to the import penetration, will he say whether he envisages a situation where there is a negative growth rate on imports?

Mr. Meacher: The range of the sliding scale is again, I stress, under discussion. We have to discuss this with our partners in the Community before we have the substantive negotiation in Geneva when we have to get agreement within the wider membership of the MFA. I do not rule out the possibility that the level could go down to zero, but it is a matter which we have to discuss and agree. We have to bear in mind that it is not every country in the EEC, let alone the developing countries, which would be prepared to accept that. But it is one of the proposals to move towards zero growth, and there is no reason why at

this stage we should rule out such a possibility.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey): The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has raised a crucial point. Surely it is not much use the Minister suggesting that a formula can be found unless it can be applied and can offer total protection at a time of major disruption. Is it the Government's intention to try to achieve the kind of negotiation that the Minister has just outlined?

Mr. Meacher: The kind of framework that my hon. Friend mentioned is our objective. We want protection at high levels of import penetration, and it is our intention to get complete protection.
There are many proposals on the table at present. A further proposal to link the scale to the level of domestic prodution. as well as to import penetration, is also being considered, as is the possibility of applying lower growth rates to the dominant suppliers.
We are also considering the base levels at which the quotas themselves are to be fixed, and here there are two important proposals, One is to allow variable reference periods in exceptional cases where the importing country is in difficulty. At present this right extends only to exporting countries. The other is to fix the reference period to the start of bilateral negotiations. This would avoid the present MFA.

Mr. Madden: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a suspicion in the British industry that, pending bilateral talks, exporting nations have sought to increase their imports to the United
Kingdom in order to build a favourable framework for the negotiations? Is it not impracticable to phase the base periods on the bilateral agreement figures? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to revise the whole of the base year period for renegotiation of the MFA, and go back to a period of five or 10 years ago? This would give a much more realistic figure and would take account of the disproportionate amount of import penetration that the United Kingdom has borne during that period.

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears. I do not believe, how-ever, that it is consistent with the bargain


that is the basis for the MFA to get an agreement for the base line for estimating quotas which could go back five or 10 years. The level that exists at the end of the negotiation would be going too far in the other direction, but we could not achieve an agreement to go back as far as my hon. Friend has suggested. We are concerned that there might be a time limit placed with regard to the bilateral negotiations to prevent the kind of forestalling which I have described and which might involve a reference to the most sensitive products. The length of time which we could go back is a bargaining point, and I hope that there will be a considerable improvement on the position as it now stands.

Mr. David Walder (Clitheroe): Is the Minister saying that it would be possible to have an arrangement which took account of our special difficulties even if that arrangement was not the same as the one entered into by our EEC partners?

Mr. Meacher: The new arrangements would be made on our behalf by the EEC. To that extent they would apply across the Community. Special regional provisions can be made on quotas, and of the 89 quotas which now exist 66 are EEC and 23 are regional quotas applied specifically to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Noble: Would not my hon. Friend agree that within the existing framework there is a possibility of a rolling forward or rolling back of imports? Will he clarify whether the statement he has just made could be overcome by a country taking its quotas in advance rather than a forestalling situation? The present situation allows a greyhounding of further imports into this country.

Mr. Meacher: In so far as there is a time limit for negotiations or an accounting period for the estimation of quotas, it is the start and not the conclusion of negotiations which would deal with forestalling, and the rapid build-up of trade would be prevented. That is the proposal we are anxious to explore within the Community and later in the negotiations.
I should point out here that it is the EEC and not the United Kingdom independently which is a signatory of the MFA. Our first task, therefore, has been

and remains to agree a common line with our Community partners, and all the points I have mentioned are proposals which are being discussed in Brussels. No final positions have been adopted and, of course, I cannot at this stage guarantee that the various proposals that I have outlined will be finally agreed in Brussels or later in Geneva. But we shall continue to press vigorously for our main objective—better safeguards and flexible growth rates. I know that these objectives are very closely in line with both sides of our industry. We have kept in close touch with them and have examined all the ideas and suggestions they have made. I very much hope this dialogue will continue in the coming months.
At the opening of the MFA renegotiation in Geneva last December, the Community made a strong statement in favour of renewal of the MFA but with major changes. More specifically the Community drew attention to five main problem areas—cumulative disruption, high import penetration, disruptively low prices, forestalling during negotiations and the base levels for quotas.
That statement was supported by Canada, Austria and Australia. But the Americans, and most of the developing countries favoured renewal of the MFA without change. The Community is now working on a detailed negotiating mandate to convert the Geneva statement into practical proposals. I can assure the House that we are pressing our Community partners to draw up negotiating directives which reflect as far as possible the objectives we all want to achieve.
In the meantime, of course, the present MFA and the bilateral agreements concluded under it will run until the end of this year. The bilateral arrangements which will replace those we are considering today will obviously depend on the outcome of the renegotiation, and some modifications will no doubt be necessary. It is too early to say at this stage what these modifications might be, and I should now like to deal briefly with those documents which relate to MFA agreements. Some of these relate to the formal conclusion of the agreements themselves and others to the licensing arrangements for products which are subject to quotas.
Imports from the eight countries concerned—that is, South Korea, Macao, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Egypt, Brazil


and Colombia—together amounted to £116·3 million in 1976, or only about 7·3 per cent. of our total imports of textiles and clothing. About half of this total came from South Korea.
The agreements provide for 19 Community quotas and, in addition, six quotas for the United Kingdom alone. The range of products covered varies from agreement to agreement depending on the pattern of trade with the particular country, and covers the most sensitive products in each case. Cotton and spun synthetic cloth, where the current rates of import penetration are over 60 per cent., are restricted from South Korea, Malaysia and Japan, and cotton cloth from Brazil is also restricted. Imports from Malaysia and Brazil are down on last year, significantly so in the case of Malaysia, and so also are imports of synthetic fabric from South Korea. The penetration levels remain high, however, because of imports from our large traditional suppliers—for example, India.
On the clothing side, there are quotas on a wide range of products from South Korea, including woven and knitted shirts. blouses, trousers and jeans, suits and jackets, raincoats and knitted sweaters. The annual EEC rate of growth for these products varies between 2·5 per cent. and 9 per cent. and is distributed among the member States according to the Community's burden-sharing formula. This allows those member States which have in the past been traditionally large importers to take a smaller share of the Community's growth, down to a minimum of 0·5 per cent. The United Kingdom benefits from this sharing of the burden as far as our big traditional suppliers are concerned. For example, in the case of Hong Kong we have the minimum growth rate on seven out of 20 quotas. Where the traditional trade has been smaller, however, we have to take a larger share, as in the case of South Korea. There is one exception, however, which is knitted sweaters—one of our sensitive products with an import penetration level of 34 per cent.—where we have the minimum figure of 0·5 per cent. growth rate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the subject of burden-sharing within the EEC, how long will it take before the United Kingdom as a substantial importer of textiles is in the same position as, for

example, Italy? Will it not take a quarter of a century before such a burden-sharing is to our advantage?

Mr. Meacher: It will take some time, but I cannot confirm the period of time stated by the hon. Gentleman because it depends on the terms of the renegotiation of the MFA, on the modifications of existing bilateral agreements and on the extention of those agreements to other countries.
There are four other countries in relation to which we hope to achieve bilateral agreements. I refer to Thailand, Mexico, Hungary and Poland. No doubt in time there will be others, too.
The other smaller agreements provide for quotas on men's shirts from Malaysia and trousers and jeans from Macao and Singapore. In addition, under the consultation provisions in the agreements we have secured an additional restraint on knitted shirts from Macao and we are seeking the same from Singapore. Consultations are also taking place with Macao on men's jackets and women's blouses. There are no restrictions on clothing from Brazil, but we are watching the situation closely as imports are increasing. We do not import any clothing from Egypt.
South Korea is by far the most significant of the eight suppliers. As a result of the agreement, 86·5 per cent. of our imports are now restricted. But hon. Members may recall from the previous debate on this agreement at the beginning of last year that emergency restrictions had to be introduced on some products during the latter part of 1975. Unfortunately, this did not prevent a large build-up of trade, which means that the quota levels in this agreement are higher than we would have wished. As I have already said, this problem of protracted negotiations and forestalling is not adequately catered for in the present MFA, and we are giving very serious thought to improved arrangements in our discussions about the renegotiation of the MFA.
There is one further point about these agreements. As I mentioned earlier, restrictions which predated the MFA but which did not justify inclusion in the bilateral agreements had to be phased out by 31st March 1977. The United Kingdom therefore instituted a programme of gradual liberalisation on the


majority of products, by which I mean those that are not sensitive. A notice to importers was published in the journal Trade and Industry on 11th February giving details of a number of restrictions which have now been removed with effect from 1st January this year. These include previous restrictions against South Korea, Macao, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Brazil and Colombia. For certain sensitive products, such as cotton yarn from several sources and cotton handkerchiefs from South Korea, restrictions will continue until the end of March. I wish to stress that we are currently discussing with our EEC partners what arrangements might be made to continue these restrictions after that cut-off date.
I should now like to turn briefly to the other documents listed on the Order Paper, which fall outside the framework of the MFA. First, let me mention the jute agreements between the EEC and India and Bangladesh. The Scrutiny Committee has recommended that the United Kingdom should not give its assent in Brussels to the draft regulations until they have been debated. I hope, however, that after today's debate these two agreements can go forward for formal conclusion in Brussels. Jute is a very important product for both India and Bangladesh and features in the integrated programme which received broad acceptance at last year's UNCTAD conference in Nairobi. In providing for annual growth, which will be distributed among the member States, the Community is recognising the problems of the jute producers and is also fulfilling its obligations under the Joint Declarations of Intent with India and Bangladesh. At the same time, the Community's own jute industries are protected by the continuation of export restraint on the part of India and Bangladesh.
The remaining documents relate to the EEC-Portugal interim agreement and four other measures relating to tariff quotas and origin rules. In order to ensure that hon. Members have a full opportunity to debate this matter, I shall leave that topic to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry to deal with in his reply later this evening.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): I understand why the hon. Gentleman

wants to leave this matter to his ministerial colleague, but I am anxious to know the relationship on these matters between the Departments of Trade and Industry. I understand that the Department of Industry appears to have some prime responsibility, although a number of hon. Members are not clear about the situation. Can the hon. Gentleman help the House?

Mr. Meacher: We try to make a distinction between the two Departments that is reasonably sensible and practical. In regard to the domestic industry, as in the case of jute in Dundee, it is my hon. Friend who has signed the explanatory memoranda, but in the case of specifically trading matters—the great majority of cases—I have signed the explanatory memoranda. I should be the first to insist that the connection between the two is extremely close, and we operate a close liaison.
I wish to draw attention to a further regulation providing for Community tariff quotas in 1977 for imports of certain hand-woven fabrics of cotton and silk from eight developing countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This is an important matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Difficulties have arisen with imports of certain made-up goods, notably shirts, of cotton handloom fabric. These are not included in the tariff quotas, which are both small and provide for automatic reintroduction of duty once the ceiling is reached.
I am pleased to say that a note verbale was handed to the Indian representatives in Brussels earlier this afternoon, informing them that the Community intends to introduce immediate surveillance measures and intends to take action if the levels of trade in 1977 look like exceeding certain reference levels. I assure the House that the effect of this demarche in Brussels will be that for woven cotton shirts and blouses of all types imported into the United Kingdom from India—again, this is a sensitive matter—trade in 1977 will be significantly below 1976 levels.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the Minister yet received any report from the Shirley Institute on the samples which he presented to it? This is an


important matter for a sector of the textile industry—namely, the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation.

Mr. Meacher: Yes. We have had provisional results following the institute's examination. The institute looked only at a small sample, and there can be no question of deciding scientifically how accurate the results are when related to the vast quantities of imports that we are talking about. The sampling showed that there were indications that some of the products may have been mill-made and not hand-woven. I stress that that is an expert view and that the experts believe that it was extremely difficult to come to a clear view. Perhaps I should say no more about that.
There are 19 specific documents which are the subject of today's motion. They illustrate many aspects of Community activity relating to textiles. Before I conclude, I wish to return briefly to the general picture and prospects. It is clear from what I said earlier about the MFA that notably the United States and inevitably the developing countries are opposed to the changes we want and that a hard and difficult negotiation lies ahead. I would not seek for a moment to duck that. I emphasise that what I have said are our firm intentions and that proposals are far from being accepted within the Geneva ambit.
I give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government fully appreciate that the outcome of this negotiation is of vital importance for our textile and clothing industries, which provide employment for around 800,000 people. We are determined to secure international arrangements for textiles which provide adequate protection against disruptive, low-cost imports so that those employed in these industries can feel secure in their jobs and so that management will regain sufficient confidence to invest for the future.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): I am glad that the House has the opportunity today of a wide-ranging discussion on textiles because, although there have been a number of Adjournment debates recently on the special problems of the industry, it is some time since the House had the chance to discuss textile policies generally. I

welcome the debate, and would like to take the opportunity it presents of outlining in reasonably specific terms where the Opposition stand in our attitude to this vitally important industry.
I shall, perhaps, do so in rather wider terms than did the Minister in the hope that management and employees, including the trades unions, in the textile industries will feel that not only are we aware of their successes—and we have not heard much of those today—but that we are also conscious of their anxieties and problems. I would like us to be able to assist the industry wherever we can, as long as that is possible without adverse repercussions elsewhere.
I trust that the House will grant me some licence in that, unlike most hon. Members present today, I have not been associated with textile industry for a number of years. I am a parliamentary newcomer to the subject. Nevertheless, I want to set out, fairly briefly, the background against which I believe that we ought to formulate our policies. We on the Conservative Benches are anxious to strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations on the Multifibre Agreement. As the Minister has said, they will be hard and difficult. I see it as our function to help the Government keep their nerve, and support them wherever it is possible for us to be of assistance.
May I say that I do not wish to make any partisan points during the debate. I trust that, since we shall, quite shortly, be changing places on the Front Benches, the bipartisanship which will flow across the House today will continue when the two Ministers opposite are sitting on these benches.
By any standards the textile and clothing industries are of great significance for our country. In spite of the major reduction in employment which has taken place, we are still concerned with a larger employer than the whole of the coal and steel industries put together. Although I have not had time to do my sums, it is possible that we are talking about an industry which, employing 800,000 people, is larger in numbers than the motor industry and its allied trades. The industry is of great significance to our economy.
The figures that I have been given show that the industries represent about


11 per cent. of manufacturing employment and about one-fifth of all female employment in the country. They are of staggering size. I do not believe that a policy of benign neglect would be an appropriate one when we are likely to see, in any event, a much higher level of unemployment generally over the next decade. One of the problems I find, as a newcomer to this subject, is that the textile industries comprise such a wide variety of skills, technologies and products—woollen and worsted cloths, cotton and man-made fibres, hosiery and knitwear—that it is difficult to treat the industries as one in a debate of this sort. I have been warned, and I have taken the point clearly, that I must refer to the textile industries, in the plural, in view of the wide variety of skills and products involved.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton): There is also ready-made clothing.

Mr. Nott: Indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) and I—rushing from Westminster within a week of our appointments, and we seem to have held these appointments for a remarkable length of time—visited three textile companies in the Oldham, Manchester and Shipley area only to receive a barrage of criticism from the rest of the industry because we had not visited them. We are slowly getting round the textile factories. I visited some of the jute industry's factories in the Dundee area last weekend and we plan further excursions of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South who, unlike me, is not a newcomer to this subject, and I were extremely impressed by what we saw. We saw modern mills, some with the very latest equipment. The more I see of the textile industries the more impressed I am, although, clearly, I have not been shown some of the worst examples in the industry which, no doubt, exist.
With the accession of the United Kingdom to the EEC and the responsibility for international trading arrangements moving to Brussels the textile industries find themselves to be only a part, and a small part, of the United Kingdom Government's obligations. In some respects this makes the task of the

Department of Trade rather more difficult. Nevertheless, it is in our national interest that these industries should be allowed to develop through the forces of free and fair competition, and that they should have their problems duly recognised in the negotiating of interim agreements.
I wish tonight to refer to a few successes because we have heard too little of them in this House. I have often sat on the Opposition Benches and heard tales of woe about the textile industries —tales of closures, contraction and unemployment. All of this has happened but the truth is rather different. On the whole, there are many excellent aspects of our textile industries. Labour relations appear to be excellent. The industries have been major investors in new plant and machinery. The increase in output per head, as far as I am able to deduce it, has grown at double the rate of manufacturing industry generally, and has been more than five times greater than that in, say, vehicle manufacturing. These are all successes of the industries, and they should be recognised in the House.
It is the recent achievement in export markets which seems to be the most encouraging feature of all. Last year, over £1,500 million of products were exported. Although the industries have taken some nasty knocks in the worldwide recession, with a more stable economic environment and sensible EEC trade policies they could take off and produce a very large favourable trade balance over the coming years.
So I believe that, whereas some people have regarded these as declining industries, we have every reason to believe that they are growth industries, and we must treat them as such and not always assume that they are beset with disasters, difficulties, closures and the kind of problem that we hear so much about in Adjournment debates—although that is not to say that such debates are not desirable and necessary when particular problems arise.
I give two examples. Courtaulds is the United Kingdom's sixth largest exporter and the largest textile exporter in the world. It will increase its exports to the EEC by 120 per cent. this year. An announcement last week said that the British knitwear industry had exported


50 per cent. last year above the previous record year. These examples could be repeated many times over among these large and diverse industries.
This achievement is not just happening in Europe. Many of our companies are beginning to establish major footholds in the markets of the Far East and Japan. It is vitally important that anything we do under the MFA, anything we do in import restraint, and anything we do to encourage more orderly marketing in this country, should not damage the position of our exporters and their prospects in overseas markets.
It would be wrong to suggest, however, that major difficulties do not exist. They clearly do. In recent years the United Kingdom industry as a whole has suffered considerable decline due to overcapacity, not only in this country but in the world generally. As new textile industries have become established in the new and developing world, with a plentiful supply of low-cost labour and cheap raw materials, the pressures on our domestic producers have intensified.
In designing the correct trade policies to encourage our own industries, we have to recognise two prime factors. First, orderly markets in the developed world—the United States, Europe and here— free from dumping and unfair competition, are as much in the interests of the developing countries as they are in ours. Secondly, the major structural changes which have taken place in the textile and clothing industries over the last decade or so are only now just beginning to bear fruit. The results of those changes must not be jeopardised by irresponsible trade policies.
The growth of economic nationalism has meant that trade has not been free for many generations. Although it has been an ideal established by some academics and some Whitehall Departments in the past, those academics and Whitehall Departments—we all know who they are—have not had their theories subject to the disciplines of the ballot box, but I think that all of us have noticed a change in emphasis on the part of the Department of Trade in recent months, and the Government have some credit for that. We welcome it and believe that it is right.
It is within this context that we on this side of the House will support the Government and give them every help we can in renegotiating the multifibre arrangements, but not just in that, but also in arriving at more effective antidumping procedures and policies with GATT. The multi-lateral negotiations will be coming up in the autumn the Tokyo round, and in arriving at arrangements, through multi-lateral negotiations, involving fair competition, fair pricing and fair access to our markets. We will give our support.
Most of the hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the renegotiation of the multifibre arrangements. I will be specific and say what I think, from a necessarily quick study of the subject. But I am glad to say that I have had the help and advice of many of my hon. Friends—and now, at this critical moment, I have forgotten their constituencies; but they include one of my hon. Friends from the Manchester area, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), one of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—the "knitwear" Member—who in particular have spent considerable time trying to keep me on the straight and narrow path.
First, I think that the MFA should be renegotiated to cover a longer period of time. Although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to this point, I take it to be the Government's position that they want to renegotiate the new MFA to extend for at least five to 10 years in length. He did not give the Government's view, but we feel that it must cover a much longer period than the original arrangements. It is also very important that there should be a speedy conclusion to the negotiations in order to prevent the build-up of imports which occurred on the last occasion.
Secondly, if there is to be a longer period for the renegotiated MFA—say, five years or more—in consequence of that length of period, it will be important to build into the new MFA flexibility clauses, should changes in economic conditions render the original agreement inoperative or ineffective. It will be difficult to work out a formula, but I suggest that a starting point could be that the growth factor might be varied in the


light of certain specified economic conditions.
Thirdly, the base period for any MFA should be lengthened. I suggest that it should be two years, or more possibly. Perhaps we could take an average of two or three years, and deal with the problems raised by hon. Members opposite on that basis. It is what the hon. Gentleman referred to as a longer reference period. I think that he was, perhaps, suggesting an averaging out process, or something of the kind. I believe that this would provide a more realistic basis upon which to determine the size of import quotas.
In addition, it might be possible to allow the various textile sectors themselves to determine which base period would be appropriate for the calculation of import penetration. I have no doubt that the Government will, presumably, accept from particular sectors of the industry their own proposals for variable base reference points for different sectors. Clearly, one base reference arrangement would not be suitable to cover all sectors.
Fourthly, I think that it is vital that there should be a commitment to move rapidly towards equality of the burden-sharing arrangements among our EEC partners. I think that the Minister was really referring to burden sharing within the Community when he was talking about the state of the domestic market and a sliding scale relating to import penetration. Although the MFA clearly is a Community negotiation I imagine that he, in referring to a sliding scale relating to import penetration, was looking to different burden-sharing arrangements within the Community itself. I think that there is a strong belief—clearly correct: we share it —among our textile industries that they have been forced to carry more responsibility within the Community for the developing nations than is actually fair given the state of the market.
My figures, which are obviously on a different basis from that of the Under-Secretary, show that textiles imported into the United States in 1976 amounted to 15 per cent. of domestic consumption and the figure for the EEC as a whole was 35 per cent. If we look at the cumulative effect of imports at all stages, from man-made fibres through fabrics to

garments and other made-up goods, the figure of import penetration in the United Kingdom in 1976 was 66 per cent. The Minister's figure was much lower, but I think he was referring to the cotton and allied textile area. He said 24 per cent. but I was not sure to which area of the market this figure related. I am sure that there is no need to disagree about figures. I have the figure of 66 per cent. It is vital that the new burden-sharing arrangements within the EEC should be fairer and more equitably based.
Lastly, on the Multifibre Arrangement, it is very important that the Community should choose an appropriate global policy for textile imports. This is another reason for agreeing with the Minister, namely, that we must provide against cumulative disruption. That is very important.
I shall leave the subject of the MFA now, since I know that my hon. Friends will wish to fill in the details. Some may disagree with me on points of detail, but this will ensure that we have a more useful debate.
I move on to anti-dumping procedures, which are very relevant to the problems of the textile and clothing industries. Problems have been caused with many products, not least clothing products from Iron Curtain countries. The Minister referred to Romanian suits, I believe. Both sides of the House must agree that our anti-dumping procedures should be made more effective, simpler, and be speeded up. In pursuit of that objective we recommend the following points. The Minister has referred to some of them at Question Time but he did not touch on them today.
First, the burden of proof concerning costs has to be shifted from the manufacturer or the industrial sector affected in this country to the exporter in the exporting country. As I understand the position, this is effectively what happens in many of our competitor countries in the EEC. I see that the Under-Secretary is nodding his head.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Noble: He is shaking it.

Mr. Nott: There is some dispute as to whether the Under-Secretary his nodding his head or shaking it. I think that he is disagreeing rather than agreeing.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Is my hon. Friend aware that North America, Australia and New Zealand to a large extent put the burden of proof on importers? Could we not follow their example?

Mr. Nott: I should prefer to see a change in the burden of proof required in anti-dumping procedures rather than see this country using a whole panoply of non-tariff harriers which are, alas, used by some of our friends and allies on the Continent. It is very easy to foul things up at ports or airports, to make sure that perishable produce lies around for long enough to make it useless. This is not a procedure which any Government or any Opposition should do anything other than condemn. It is better to look afresh at our arrangements for antidumping rather than resort to this kind of device, which is greatly detrimental to international trade.

Mr. Noble: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at this question in the context of GATT, and what GATT has to say about dumping?

Mr. Nott: Although there was some disagreement about whether the Minister was nodding or shaking his head I could read in his mind that he, too, was thinking of the precise terms used in GATT on this point. Of course, I shall look more closely at GATT, but I must confess that GATT has many interpretations, as most countries in the world would agree. I take the point of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) about GATT, and I do not think that the Under-Secretary needs to make the point because it is a valid one.

Mr. Meacher: In the case of America, importers are required to state the domestic prices from the supplying country on their documents, but that is for the purpose of customs valuation, and even in that case it does not prevent the need for a full anti-dumping investigation where there is an allegation of dumping.

Mr. Nott: I understood that, and where there is a prima facie case of dumping, the first problem faced by the Department of Trade is that of obtaining the necessary information to prove the case under the GATT rules. That was my

second point, which the Under-Secretary has already made, that we need to put on shipping documents details of prices in the domestic market and manufacturing costs, so that this information is more readily available to the Department of Trade.
I was, however, making another point, that we also have to look at switching the onus of proof from the domestic purchaser who is adversely affected by a prima facie case of dumping to the exporter overseas who is sending the goods to this country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like to support the point which my hon. Friend was making, although he has not yet made it sufficiently strongly to educate the Minister on this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the domestic prices are indicated on documents coming into this country the Department of Trade could make them available to the trade, and it would then be up to the trade or a particular section of industry to lodge a complaint of dumping with the Department? In other words, the industry would be able to act very much faster than at present, before the real damage was done. It is the fact that the damage is done before action can be taken that is creating so much havoc in the present situation.

Mr. Nott: I must look at the record tomorrow to make sure that my hon. Friend was saying what I meant to say, but I none the less thank my hon. Friend very much for his assistance. It sounded correct to me.
The records and information will gradually build up over a period if information is contained in documents in the way the Under-Secretary described as happening in the United States. We consider that, if the information can be built up, sectors of the textile industry will themselves be facilitated—this was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—in taking appropriate action and bringing the appropriate information forward to the Department.
There is also a case for imposing tougher control on political pricing. I need to look further into this, but in the case of the COMECON countries, where the Government are supporting the most disastrous trade deals negotiated by the former previous Prime Minister, there is


a case for being far tougher on political pricing and subsidy pricing where it arises in countries of the Far East, some of which subsidise exports to this country.
Finally, when responsibility for triggering anti-dumping procedures moves to Brussels later in the year—I speak personally here—I see no question of a future Conservative Government standing idly by if the Commission fails to act in a determined and speedy way. I have picked my words with care, and I mean what I say. I believe it to be out of the question that any Government here could be expected to stand idly by if the Commission failed to take action. That is a practical statement of the situation, and I am just as aware as the Minister is of the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Will he explain precisely what action is meant by "would not stand idly by"? Under the Act the powers go entirely to Brussels.

Mr. Nott: I am well aware that the powers go to Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State can interpret however he wishes the words "standing idly by". I cannot possibly give an example till a particular flagrant case of dumping in this country arises for which no trigger is readily available through the Commission arrangements. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that technically, under the Treaty, responsibility for these matters moves to Brussels in July, but I hope that he will not pose in white raiment. His own colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has—I must say that I do not support it—not exactly abided by the terms of the Treaty in what he has done with regard to the pig subsidy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, suggest that the Government do not on any occasion contemplate acting unilaterally, since they did so only a short time ago in a way which I should not support.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): I hope to reply far more fully later, but may I make clear now that it is intended that we retain an anti-dumping unit here in the United Kingdom and that we shall assist the Commission? We have informed the Commission to that effect,

and it welcomed it. It will not, therefore, be just a total transfer to the EEC.

Mr. Nott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was aware that the Department of Trade intends to keep its antidumping unit here.
Despite the criticisms made of that unit, I should add that I hear many good words said about it, about its skill and its professionalism, and I am glad that we shall be retaining a unit at our disposal. I must add that I should not expect the unit to remain after July the same size as it is now. It would be only too typical of our bureaucracy if, when responsibility for these matters moves to Brussels in July, instead of diminishing it increased in size in order to give better advice to Brussels. Let us be clear that when our positions are reversed the first question which I shall wish to ask is "What was the size of the unit before the transfer of responsibility to Brussels, compared with the size after transfer?" I hope that the bureaucracy is forewarned of an impending, not unreasonable, question on that subject.
Finally in regard to the GATT, could the Under-Secretary of State for Industry tell us whether it is intended that textiles shall be included in the Tokyo Round? I assume that they are to be, but there seems to be some confusion about it. If the United States could be persuaded to reduce its tariffs against, say, our wool textiles, that would be of major benefit to our industry. The ad valorem duties and specific duties on some wool textiles in the United States rise as high as 50 per cent. against our goods. It is vital, first, that in the multilateral trade negotiations in Tokyo textiles are included and, second, that the Government use what I regard as their strong negotiating position in the multilateral negotiations to persuade the United States to be reasonable in the renegotiation of the Multifibre Agreement. I regard the multilateral negotiations as crucial.
I apologise to the House for having taken so long, and I conclude in this way. Improved international trading arrangements along the lines of the Minister's comments, which, I believe, were welcome, are vital, but they are only part of the necessary policy. Many of our textile industries depend on small manufacturing units, many of them managed by


families or by small teams of people, and to survive in textiles calls for substantial entrepreneurial skill and willingness to take risks. It must be our policy to establish as soon as possible a climate within which such companies can flourish.
I must put it to the Government—this is my only critical point so far—that they must change the pattern of capital and wealth taxation in this country. The burden which the Government's legislation imposes upon small companies in the textile industry, whether through the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Employment Protection Act or the Price Code, all add to costs and frequently require resources which small companies cannot produce. The health of our textile industries and their contribution to the United Kingdom economy cannot be restored unless the climate for small companies is improved and incentives for enterprise are brought back through all ranges of income. It is all very well for us to discuss trading arrangements today, but these fundamental economic and political points are equally as important to the industry.
We on this side believe that, given the right trading environment in the form of a strengthened MFA, the textile industries have a sound and prosperous future and can continue to make a major contribution to our economy in terms of their export performance, their industrial relations and the employment which they offer in the regions of the United Kingdom. These industries can make a unique contribution to improving the country's standard of living, and it should be the object not just of our trading policies but of our taxation and economic policies also to ensure just that.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale): The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) made an interesting and entertaining speech, despite his fairly obvious handicaps, the first of which he himself admitted, namely, that he is relatively new to the world of textiles and the textile industry. I suppose that one should congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on having taken his hon. Friend round on such a rapid guided tour. I always find it of interest when someone comes new to the world of textiles and is forced to cast off the image of dark

satanic mills, cloth caps and clops, and recognise that this is a highly capitalised industry with all the excellent features that the hon. Gentleman described.
The hon. Gentleman's second disadvantage was that the clothes of his political statements had already been stolen by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having made the most important statement on the textile industry that I have heard in this place since I became a Member in October 1974. I assure my hon. Friend that the people who work in the industry in my constituency, the trade unions and the employers will regard his statement as a substantial step forward and will be giving every possible assistance to the Government in the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement.
It has become almost habitual to come to a textile debate with a loaded shotgun, and I assure hon. Members that I had both barrels loaded and carried a good stock of cartridges. In the circumstances, however, I have to put my shotgun away, because my hon. Friend, in outlining the renegotiating posture being adopted by the Government, included everything—or almost everything—that the Labour Party textiles group has been asking for over a long time.
Technically, we are here debating a series of documents relating to the existing MFA, and I think it fair to say that in many ways, in the view of many in the industry, the existing arrangement has become somewhat discredited. I was a little concerned and bewildered during the opening part of my hon. Friend's speech to hear him describe the arrangement in what I regarded as too glowing terms. For example, The Guardian on 7th February pointed out that imports of textiles last year reached a peak of £1·66 billion—in other words, they were more than one-third up on the previous year, and that in spite of the existence of the arrangement. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that my fears were dispelled by the later points he made about the MFA. The weaknesses of that arrangement have been well documented in the Chamber today and at other times.
The biggest weakness has been that the arrangement included a growth factor which could not possibly be accommodated by our textile industry. Whether


that factor was 0·5 per cent., 6 per cent. or somewhere in between, at a time when domestic consumption was falling the inevitable result was that mills were closed and workers were thrown on to the dole. It was based on the wrong year. If we could have used 1973 for the base year or used an average of the figures from 1970 to 1975, the figures might have been realistic. But to base it on a year when imports were greyhounded in to establish levels on which to negotiate meant that the levels of imports into the country were far too high.
The third major weakness was that insufficient account was taken, in the burden-sharing arrangements of excessive levels of imports into the country. We have seen the effects of this. We know the effect on jobs. The Amalgamated Textile Workers' Union last year carried out a survey in the North-West of redundancies and of the temporary employment subsidy in the spinning and manufacturing industries. The survey revealed some startling figures. It showed that 74 textile firms received the subsidy in 1976 on behalf of a total work force of 12,364, or 21 per cent. of the total employed in spinning and manufacturing in the North-West.
The survey showed that on 20th August 1976 there had been 394 applications involving altogether 32,287 workers, which suggested that within the textile industry alone, of all the industries in the North-East, successful TES applications accounted for 38 per cent. of the labour force covered. The survey showed that the region's textile firms had announced redundancies which had already affected, or which would affect this year, 5,184 workers in the spinning and weaving industries.
The hon. Member for St. Ives says that we should be talking about a success story in textiles rather than a grim and dismal story. I suggest that he hesitates before arguing that case among textile workers in the North-West who for the last 16 years have seen employment in the industry almost collapse.
It is important to point out that, given the heavy concentration of the textile industry in some towns, the closure of a mill can affect a single family income by wiping out its earning capacity for four people—father, mother and two children.

Mill closures have a devastating effect on the community. Although the level of employment changes considerably in textiles whenever someone loses a job, there is still a tremendous cultural feeling for the industry, which generates a far wider feeling than perhaps many other industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) could possible describe this more graphically than anyone as a result of the closure of the Empress Mill and of Courtaulds at Skelmersdale.
We regard the current agreement, reached two years ago, as a beginning. It reminds me of Don Revie. He tried to plan the England team, coached the players and made plans, but somehow the ball always went into his own net. What he did not realise was that, while we were playing a system developed by Sir Alf Ramsey, the Continentals had gone beyond that. That was why the ball went into our net. Similarly, I sometimes think that when we stop up one import source, the developing nations find an alternative way of getting goods into the country.
Many workers and employers in the industry feel that, despite the framework of controls, in some way or other they are sometimes evaded. I describe a feeling; I have no proof. A business man who manufactures children's and women's clothing visited my surgery one Saturday morning. He described the decline of his firm over the last 10 years, particularly the last six years, and the way in which he was convinced that controls were being evaded and more and more garments were finding their way into the country. I asked him to give me some photographic or documentary proof. if he does, I shall pass it on to the Minister.
What do we look forward to in the rest of the agreement? In his opening statement, my hon. Friend mentioned many of the things we want. The most important point he made was about the negotiation of a recession clause. In the debate on 28th January 1976–I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives has been converted to this view—his predecessor as spokesman, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—

Mr. Nott: Not quite my predecessor.

Mr. Noble: Well, his predecessor but one. I cannot keep up with the changes


in the Opposition. When I asked for a regulator in that debate, the hon. Member for Worthing said:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's observation that the textile industry cycle may not coincide with the general economic cycle. But unless he proposes to say that when the two do coincide he would not advocate the policy of restricting imports because of the dangers of retaliation, his argument does not stand up."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28th Jan. 1976; c. 41.]
The hon. Member for Worthing was refusing to accept the idea of a regulator. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that this was included in our negotiating mandate. I can assure him that the textile unions with which we have worked will be delighted to hear that.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has pointed to the divisions of view about textiles expressed quite often on the Opposition Benches. Can he recall, as I do, one notable occasion when the hon. Member opening for the Opposition expressed firm support for import controls, which were strongly denounced by the hon. Gentleman who closed on behalf of the Opposition in the same debate?

Mr. Noble: I can recall that. I am trying to recall who was the hon. Gentleman opening.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen): I can tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Noble: It was the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) who opened that debate. He is perhaps more experienced in the difficulties of the textile trade than the majority of his colleagues, and he is well known for speaking his own mind. It was regrettable, however, that while he did not need to convince us, he could not convince his hon. Friends.
The other important point which was mentioned was the idea of a global quota which would stop import penetration, or what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described as cumulative disruption caused by cheap imports. What my hon. Friend did not say was at what level the Government thought that a global quota should be fixed. I assume that this global quota will be on a product-by-product basis. If, for example, we fix the level at 40 per cent.— that has been recom-

mended by many of my hon. Friends and by organisations outside—on a specific subject and we leave the margin to be competed for among developed countries, as opposed to low-cost producers, some sectors of the industry might be unable to make up the shortfall because the industry itself had collapsed in that section. In these circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), who, until his recent promotion, always took part in these debates, has said, the capacity has gone.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these global quotas, certainly from next July, will have to be negotiated on an EEC basis and not purely on a United Kingdom and other country basis?

Mr. Noble: I have always been of the view that, since we had the MFA, any global quota would have to be negotiated through the MFA anyway. Nothing has changed there: it is the dumping which will change in July. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the burden-sharing arrangement, that is rather different. We must remember that we should have to be flexible on the global quota if there should be circumstances in which the British industry could not meet the demands of the home market.
There is one point which has been presed from this side which my hon. Friend did not mention. I would once again draw it to his attention. All of us who have been involved in textile debates over the last two and a half years must be aware that from time to time we have been criticised as being opposed to the Third World, the developing countries. Nothing is further from the truth. The textile worker in general and the textile worker in Lancashire in particular has an honourable record towards the Third World and has helped to provide substantian growth in those areas.
However, when the Lancashire textile industry disappears it will be of no assistance to the Third World. The amount of the textile industry left now is such that the complete disappearance and handing over of all that productive capacity would not help those countries much.
When we talk about fair competition, we feel strongly that we are not comparing like with like. We can talk about


raw material costs and so on, but in this country we are talking about the work of a highly sophisticated labour force, enoying the rights of union membership and collective bargaining and at certain times enjoying, if that is the right word, social security benefits and unemployment pay. That all creates on-costs for employers, which many of our competitors do not have to meet.
That situation is recognised by the International Clothing and Leather Workers Federation and by the unions in this country, and the only way that we can effectively help the Third World is by raising their standards towards ours. As long as the multinational corporations, so many of which exploit the workers of South-East Asia, are allowed to go on doing so without the reasonable restrictions imposed by trade union membership and collective bargaining and without the on-costs of the social security systems that we have, that wide gap between British or European workers and those of South-East Asia will remain.
Therefore, we believe that there should be a social or labour code attached to these international agreements. Until that is done and until the workers in Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan and so on have the right to organise freely in unions and those unions are recognised by the employers, thereby improving workers' conditions, we shall continue to have this wide disparity and will have to fall back on some kind of restriction.
There is evidence that, although economic development has been brought to many Third World countries, it has not necessarily brought massive, substantial or even reasonable improvements in living standards. The multinationals have moved in to replace the basic industries with modem and highly technical industries and have created unemployment. Whereas a few people in South-East Asian countries may have benefited, there has been a substantial growth of unemployment and the majority have failed to benefit. I hope that at some stage in the discussions in the EEC the question of a social code attached to the MFA or the GAIT can be considered.
The Minister mentioned the United States. I have been extremely perturbed about the possible attitude of the United States to these negotiations. I was there

fore heartened to note an article in The Times today headed
US likely to support changes in fibres pact".
It said:
Indications that America may be prepared to agree to changes in the Multi Fibre Arrangement —which is due for renewal at the end of this year—have emerged after meetings between the United States textile industry organisations and President Carter.
This has heartened leaders of the United Kingdom textile industry, which wants the EEC to adopt a tough stance in the forthcoming talks in Geneva on the future of the MFA by insisting on a fundamental renegotiation of its provisions.
I believe that the framework outlined by the Minister is a substantial and fundamental renegotiating stance. If the attitude of the United States is softening, that is an important factor in the negotiations when we move on from the present stage to the international stage. I am encouraged by the Minister's statement, as I am sure my constituents will be who work in the industry.
I wish the Government good will and strength to their elbow in the forthcoming negotiations. They must not back down. It is not only a political gambit which is involved, although that may have attracted the hon. Member for St. Ives on his recent tours. It is the lives and the livelihoods of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends that are at stake.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I am in considerable agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has said. He mentioned Mr. Revie and Sir Alf Ramsey and talked about the England football team having a strategy about 10 years out of date. On a slightly different front, only last Saturday, when England played France at Twickenham, we had 90 per cent. of the game but lost the match by 4 points to 3. It is significant that we lost to France, a country which, in any international trading arrangement and certainly within the EEC, ensures on all possible occasions that the arrangement suits it. The French take whatever action is necessary to ensure that their national interests are paramount.
Unlike the hon. Member for Rossendale, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on the


tremendous interest that he has taken in textiles since he took over that portfolio. His first outside visit was to the textile industry and that is significant. There is among the Opposition a deep concern about the industry which my hon. Friend clearly displayed when he went to Bradford, Leeds and Manchester as shadow spokesman for trade just after his appointment.
Since then, my hon. Friend has been elsewhere, including Dundee to examine the jute industry, and has had regular communication with all sectors of the textile industry, including the unions. I was present at a lunch in Manchester when he met union representatives of the textile workers. It is therefore most significant that both my hon. Friend and his number two, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) have been taking a keen interest in this industry.
My hon. Friend was right to say that this is not an industry in demise or one with no future. We believe that it has a great future. Some of his statistics clearly show that the industry as a whole is potentially a major exporter—something of vital importance to the United Kingdom.
If I may be a little parochial for a moment, my constituency has many important textile interests and has made a major contribution to our exports in many respects, particularly narrow fabrics and specialist sectors such as tie manufacturing. A company in my constituency dyed and finished the material used in Princess Anne's wedding dress which shows that we can do whatever is required even at the very top end of the market.
We on this side of the House have been in regular contact with a variety of textile organisations and interests—the British Textile Confederation, representing both employers and trade unions; the British Textile Employers Association; the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which again is representative of both sides of the industry; the Clothing Manufacturers Federation; the British Clothing Industry's Council for Europe, because we know that from July Europe will be very important to the industry; and the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers Federation. In my constituency I have been in regular touch with the

Macclesfield Textile Manufacturing Association, which represents a number of large and small companies.
The major importance of this debate is undoubtedly that we can express views about the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. I want to deal with this under a number of headings. The first is that of global quotas. Adoption of the global quota system would mean that there would be effective control over imports from all low-cost sources, including both established suppliers and any new sources that may emerge in the future. There is a significant precedent for the global quota approach—I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade has left, because he knows a great deal about this—in the long-term agreement for cotton textiles—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is well aware of this agreement, which preceded the Multifibre Arrangement. Global quotas should be applied to all low-cost suppliers, including the EEC associates and Lomé Convention countries. This is vital if there is to be a real future for our industry.
The second heading is that of orderly marketing. This concept was the raison d'ôtre of both the long-term agreement and the Multifibre Arrangement. To achieve this ideal it is essential to ensure that the policy of burden sharing is applied to developed countries and that access to the markets of the developed countries should be equitably shared among the developing countries. The latter should be effected by a redistribution of existing quotas, not by the creation of new quotas.
My next heading is that of price disruption. This phrase was purposely avoided by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, but it is very meaningful to those who work in the industry. This has long been recognised as one of the most pernicious aspects of the imports problem, since the very low prices of much imported merchandise depress the market price available for such part of the market as is left for United Kingdom manufacturers and producers. The Swiss long ago recognised this problem by introducing a system whereby imports were not allowed into the country at a price lower than 90 per cent. of that for comparable textiles produced in Switzerland, so there is a precedent. The Belgians have also


operated a scheme whereby the granting of import licences was conditional on the price not being potentially disruptive.
Canada has taken unilateral action. On 29th November of last year the Canadian Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced that imports of clothing in 1977 would be held to the 1975 levels. There had been an increase in imports in the first seven months of 1976 of 52 per cent. over the previous year. The Canadian Minister said that many domestic garment manufacturers had been closed and others were on short time. This emergency action, he said, was taken under Article XIX of the GATT and Canada planned to consult trading partners.
Likewise, unilateral action has been taken by Australia. During 1975, the Australian Government took emergency action under Article XIX of the General Agreement to slow down imports of a number of products. Among the imports affected were motor vehicles, footwear, carpets, and steel sheets and plates. Australia also introduced tariff quotas on imports of certain textiles.
The Australian actions were discussed in the GATT Council on a number of occasions from June 1975 onwards, and concern was expressed by the representatives of many countries. Consultations were initiated between Australia and a number of its trade partners and were still in progress at the end of the year. With respect to textiles, however, Australia was able to lift some of its restrictions early in 1976. In February it announced in GATT that it had abandoned the selective import quotas on textiles which it had applied against several Asian countries in 1975 in favour of a global quota system applying to imports from all sources.
One other example is that of Finland. So there is precedent for countries both within the EEC and outside taking urgent action to protect their industries.
The MFA itself includes unduly low prices as one of the key factors in causing market disruption. What is now required is strict control over disruptive prices, which are quite frequently quoted to the detriment of the exporting country, since they result in depressed earnings; and a revised MFA is the ideal international instrument to give effect to this.

Mr. Benedict Meynell, the chief EEC negotiator, has in fact stated that price disruption is one of the problems that a modified MFA should be designed to counter.
The Minister pre-empted some of what I wanted to say in that he talked about a recession clause. It is important to talk about this openly and frankly. Experience has shown that United Kingdom producers bear the brunt of any recession which takes place in world trade, since the full availability of quotas, possibly negotiated at a time of relatively good trading, has given a virtual right of access to a substantially diminished United Kingdom market. The revised MFA should contain a flexibility clause or regulator which would effectively cut back imports during a time of recession.
I move on quickly to the heading "growth factors". The degree of growth to be allowed in any quota should take full account of the degree of import penetration already effected. This has been made quite clear by hon. Members on both sides in previous textile debates. Where this is above a level that could be regarded as consistent with the sustained viability of the home industry, no growth should be allowed. Growth factors should, in fact, be applied so that the concept of orderly marketing, which is so vital to the industry, is facilitated by not only allowing zero growth in cases of high import penetration but by promoting burden sharing amongst importing countries, particularly within the EEC, and a more equitable sharing of export markets among the developing countries having regard to their varying stages of development and established access to the markets of the West. This question formed the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale.
In an intervention the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) rightly stressed the importance of the base period. It is vital that the base period for determining quota size should be applied to a fully representative period in order to prevent a build-up of trade by exporting countries as an exporting device. I know that the hon. Member for Sowerby has many examples that he will be able to quote to the House later.
Next, the newly-negotiated MFA, provided that it satisfies the requirements that


I have just drawn to the attention of the House, should run for a period of at least five years. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives stressed this matter in his excellent speech. That will allow for better forward planning by the industry.
I shall refer briefly to dumping. Inevitably this subject must form an important part of the debate. It is fully recognised that the major problem facing the United Kingdom textile industry is low-priced imports that are to an extent a result of low production costs, which in turn reflect low living standards in the exporting countries. The hon. Member for Rossendale brought this fact to the attention of the House.
Dumping, and subsidisation—I quote Malaysia and Pakistan as good examples of assisted exports—play a sufficiently signicant rôle to merit serious attention. The total impact of price disruption is of such magnitude that no single contributory factor can be ignored. Past applications under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act have been characterised by a madly frustrating attitude on the part of civil servants charged with administering an anti-dumping code recognised by the GATT. Much time has been wasted and orders have been lost. No doubt the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) will tell us later that while existing procedures have been followed mills have been closed and people have been put out of jobs. All this has happened because of the slavish adherence to a code that is out of touch with reality. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made this point forcefully.
The lack of relevance of the code to current trading conditions is illustrated by the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been one successful anti-dumping action throughout the whole industrial spectrum in which all the relevant criteria—namely prima facie dumping, demonstrable disruption directly attributable to dumped imports and acting in the national interest—have been fully satisfied. In respect of textiles, as distinct from man-made fibres and clothing, there has been no case in which an anti-dumping duty has been imposed. What may be regarded as successful applications have resulted in agreements on price adjustments or, in the case of

the Irish Republic, a quota on cotton yarn.
One of the major demands that I have made in the past is for the onus of proof to shift from the injured party to the exporter or the importing agent. Reference has been made to that argument and an interchange has taken place. I still believe that to be a valid aim. I hope that in the current consultations between the Government and Customs and Excise such an arrangement will be successfully negotiated.
If that were to take place, importers would be required to provide information on the home market price of imported goods as part of the normal customs procedure. Such an arrangement is already routine in many countries and help to provide prima facie evidence of dumping. By implication, the requirement to provide information should act as a deterrent to dumping. Perhaps that is one aspect that has not been fully considered.
As has been pointed out, from 1st July 1977 responsibility for processing antidumping applications will lie with the Commission in Brussels. I describe that as a sharing of responsibility more than a transfer. It should give more strength to our pleas for fair trading.
I, too, welcome the information given to us by the Minister that the section of the Department of Trade dealing with these matters will remain in existence. I shall not emphasise as powerfully as did my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives that the Department should, to use textile phraseology, be cut down to size. It is important that we should have the information and the people available, despite the fact that responsibility is to pass to the European Commission. This, however, presupposes a strong and purposeful policy on the part of the Commission. I hope that it will have such a policy. Any weakening in the resolve by allowing regional considerations to take priority over Community policy, for example, could produce a situation even worse than that endured by the United Kingdom producers and manufacturers in the past.
Legislation as it stands is at best weak and ambivalent—without unity and firmness of purpose, it could become so emasculated as to make a mockery of


fair international trading. Obviously the MFA and dumping, despite the numerous documents that we are considering in this debate, have formed the major part of our discussions so far.
I know from my consultations and the representations that I make to the industry that all sectors of it are keeping in touch with key personnel both within the EEC and within our Department of Trade. That is a very good thing, but from a parliamentary point of view it is vital that every effort be made to ensure that full weight is given to anti-dumping applications—their consideration must be speeded up—that the right of action on behalf of one sector in one member State is fully recognised and that the added authority of the Commission be fully exploited to the benefit of our industry.
I remind the House once again that we have a sizeable industry that can make a major contribution to the economy. It can make a major contribution to exchange currency earnings. It has a unique industrial relations record. It has an investment record that is almost second to none.
I hope that the new reality which has emerged in the debate will be continued in future and that employers, entrepreneurs and the skilled work force in the industry can have confidence to look forward to the future knowing that their jobs and investment are safeguarded.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West): As most hon. Members will know, the majority of the jute industry in Britain is concentrated in Dundee. I was rather disturbed when the Minister of State when making a brief reference to the instruments dealing with the jute industry said that he hoped that they would be speedily finalised. Bearing in mind the objections that have been made to them by the Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers in my constituency, it seems that there is something very wrong in wanting a speedy finalisation. There is great dissatisfaction among those who are involved.
I am worried because the jute industry has steadily contracted over many years. The numbers of jobs is constantly dwindling. The industry has spent large sums on equipping its mills and fac-

tories with new machinery and on bringing machinery up to date. It has done everything in its power to try to make the industry competitive.
Over the years there has always been some form of protection against cheap labour and competition from India and now Bangladesh. The protection has varied in its methods. The last form of protection was global quotas. They were claimed to be the answer to all the problems. I suppose that if they were effectively operated, they would be such an answer, but the strange thing is that they are to be retained for certain parts of the jute industry while thrown away for other parts.
Will those who are in the cotton industry be as happy in 10 years' time if they find themselves in the present position of those who are engaged in the jute industry? Will they be as happy when they realise that something has been thrown away for something that cannot be as effective? It may interest hon. Members to know that the agreement that expired at the end of 1975 is to be replaced by the new agreements. The major proportion of the United Kingdom industry concentrates on spinning and weaving cloths that are called Dundee specialities—namely, very high quality cloths and very wide cloths.
Here the industry was protected by global quotas—excluding EFTA—which were operated by the Department of of Industry. Under the new agreements, and certain others, that will not continue. The Government are proposing to adopt the EEC proposals of ceilings, operated by the exporting countries, which will be applied to certain types of cloth produced in Dundee. The interesting thing is that the ceilings are not being set at the present figures. They are higher, and an annual growth rate is allowed for. In the case of India, for categories 4 and 5, this is 10 per cent. on the present ceiling. For Bangladesh an annual growth rate of 15 per cent. is allowed for. That is a fairly large increase, which will presumably go on year by year.
If that is so, the future for Dundee is not very bright, especially as our unemployment is already higher than the Scottish average, which is in turn higher than the British average. Yet an industry employing 8,000 people is to be put in


jeopardy by these proposals. It frightens me that my hon. Friend the Minister should blithely refer to the two Statutory Instruments on jute and say that he hopes that they will be speedily finalised, ignoring the objections by the industry.
Moreover, under the ceilings that have been operating so far, India and Bangladesh have continued in full production, regardless of demand. This has meant that the industry in the United Kingdom, as in Europe, has had to bear the full weight of the fall in the market. The United Kingdom production figures over the years show this fall. For example, United Kingdom jute cloth production in 1972 was 26,000 tons; in 1973, 25,000; in 1974, 24,000; in 1975, 16,000 and in 1976, 15,000 tons. Now we are to have these other burdens in addition.
A further problem is that the quotas apply to all the countries in Europe. These ceilings were not given solely to the United Kingdom. If the European countries have a surplus, which at present they cannot use, they will now be able to use it, again to the detriment of Dundee.
Any manufacturer wanting to put capital into modernising his plant to provide jobs and keep his business going, a process that involves large sums of money, will be very reluctant when faced with the Government's attitude and the results of their past efforts, and I could not blame him. As I have said, we have an area of more than average unemployment and the prospect that one of the largest industries in the city, employing 8,000 people, may well shortly be adding to the already very high unemployment. Yet the Government keep refusing over the years to make Dundee a special development area. In spite of the continuing high unemployment there and consistently contracting industries and closures, they refuse to give us the top incentives to attract new industry.
We seem to be losing out all ways. We are losing the protection that we had and are being given new protection that will be much less effective. We are to have little inducement to industry when we already have empty advance factories. The local council has provided other factories out of its own funds, but we cannot find people to occupy them when there is such a grim prospect.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to delay further for consultations to secure an agreement that is sensible and likely to produce the kind of results that we and, I presume, the Government want. They should consult people who know what is involved, and what action needs to be taken to rectify the position. If they do not we are heading towards being a disaster area on Tayside and Dundee.
Not only Dundee but the surrounding area is affected. There will be great hardship for many of the smaller towns around Dundee as well as for the city. There is little prospect of anything to attract more new industry. We are not receiving the sort of assistance that we should have from the Government. The Government should forget the idea of getting this matter quickly finalised, because quickly finalising it in its present form would spell disaster for the city of Dundee and the whole surrounding area.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley): The Liberal Party wants to see the European Communties successfully negotiate a further Multifibre Arrangement within the terms of the GATT, as far as possible on a fairer and more realistic basis than the agreement which is now coming to an end. But when such an agreement has been obtained, we want to see the Communities work more swiftly than under the present agreement to negotiate the bilateral arrangements which follow under the terms of the agreement. We hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give some indication of steps which the British Government are taking to urge the Communities on in this matter of making swift use of the new agreement when it is available.
We regard the Multifibre Arrangement as a thoroughly civilised means, entirely within the terms of the GATT, of meeting the fully legitimate aspirations of developing countries. It is in the interests of us all to meet those aspirations and to provide arrangements for the established textile industries in the developed countries to increase their specialisation and in a planned and orderly way to continue to alter their structures to meet the new world textile manufacturing position. I stress that, because I have heard no suggestion from any quarter tonight of an


agreement which would provide protection for industries in this country—if there were any such—which had a mind to remain stuck in the old groove and not face the facts of the new world position in textiles.
The only part of the industry which I claim to know, and a substantial part of which I represent in this House, has a pretty good record right up to the present time of adapting to new markets, of being in the van of progress in new technology, of supporting a far-ranging research programme for the wool textile and allied industry, and putting that research into effect in West Yorkshire mills and dyeing and finishing plants. To give a prospect of an orderly continuance of that progress and rationalisation of our various textile industries we would welcome a successful negotiation of a further MFA.
That is particularly so since, being entirely within the terms of the GATT, it does nothing whatever to risk any kind of hindrance to the successful export of United Kingdom textile products. That is a matter of enormous importance to the wool and allied sectors, which have a splendid export record, that has now, in effect, received a further boost during the past 12 months.
I stress the need to make proper use of the new agreement once it has been obtained. Mr. Benedict Meynell has proved himself a splendid and dynamic negotiator in Brussels for the objectives that the Government announced today for improving the MFA. I hope that energies such as his will be used to ensure that the Communities swiftly operate the agreement in bilateral arrangements with the various developing countries concerned when they have the new instrument to hand.
The other point that I wish to make has already been referred to throughout the debate—that is the allied matter of anti-dumping. If the textile industries, such as cotton and wool, are armed with a realistic new MFA and much more fair and efficient anti-dumping procedures, that should be enough. Hysterical requests have sometimes been made for provocatively stringent import controls that would severely damage for a long

time ahead the export work that the wool textile industry has carried out so persistently and successfully.
I therefore conclude on anti-dumping. My party welcomes the fact that, for the first time in British economic history, the Department of Trade will cease to have the totalitarian power that it has exercised up to now, from start to finish, in the whole process of enforcing and establishing anti-dumping measures. Until now, the Department has been judge and jury as well as reluctant executioner in the anti-dumping procedure. In July, as we have been reminded, authority will pass to Brussels. To the extent that a wider range of minds and philosophies will be at work in this, the change is to be welcomed.
It is also good news that the essential parts of the anti-dumping section within our own Department of Trade will be retained. I hope that once the antidumping section of the Department of Trade has been freed of the admittedly onerous and awesome responsibility of pulling the trigger on anti-dumping procedure, it will, as a unit advising the EEC anti-dumping department, become more adventurous, more enterprising and wider ranging in its investigations of allegations of dumping in this country.
I understand and sympathise with the enormous length of time that it is bound to take conscientious people to examine allegations in the light of all the possible repercussions and all the damage that might be done to the consumer if action were taken too hastily. Nevertheless, it has been a source of low morale for some of our clothing manufacturers when many months have gone by, after representations have been made by trade associations, without any outward signs of movement by the Department. That may not be a fair representation of what has happened, but we must consider those who are desperately trying to preserve a living in these trades. I hope that the combination, of our continuing to have an anti-dumping section in this country advising the anti-dumping unit in Brussels will, without damaging the legitimate consumer interest, prove to be effective. I hope that it will give considerable reassurance to manufacturers in this country who feel that they have suffered unfairly in recent years.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby): This debate on the Common Market and the textile industry has, so far, been both usual and unusual. It is usual, whenever we discuss the Common Market, for us to face a mountain of papers, and today we are not disappointed, because we have 17 documents before us. However, the debate has been unusual in the Common Market context because the Minister has talked to the House in extremely frank terms and has addressed his remarks in a realistic and hopeful way to an industry anxious about its future.
I am glad that the Minister has returned to the Chamber. I do not wish to be patronising, but his speech will do a great deal to relieve anxiety in the textile industry, because he has indicated in the clearest terms that the Government, in renegotiating the MFA, intend to adopt a tough posture and are pursuing clear objectives that will command wide support from all sectors of the industry.
Personally, I am grateful to the Minister because I am battling against a heavy cold and I am uncertain about how long my voice will last. The Minister has saved me from having to shout at the Government again on the subject of the textile industry. What he has said has met many of the demands that I had intended to make in the debate. I am grateful to the Minister on that score.
If there were a jarring note in the debate it came from the Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). He spoke with disarming frankness and admitted that he has come to the textile industry only recently. We all understand how difficult it must be for him. But, in spite of that, he created and underlined in his speech an alarming degree of complacency about the industry's difficulties, not least the unemployment problem. If the hon. Member represented a constituency such as mine—where we now face 800 redundancies of textile workers employed by three firms —he would not view the employment prospects of the industry with the complacency that he demonstrated today.
Only today all West Yorkshire MPs received a letter from Ken Woolmer, the leader of the West Yorkshire County Council. He is extremely concerned—as

is his authority—about the problems of the textile industry, and he writes:
Because of this continuing upward trend in real unemployment, the County Council has decided that more local assistance to industry is vital. It has therefore established a new Employment and Economic Development Sub-Committee which will be taking direct action to alleviate the deteriorating employment situation. The Committee will, in particular, be tackling the unemployment problems of the inner urban areas, and is seeking Government support in its efforts to revitalise the economic life of inner urban areas, the problems of which are acutely reflected in so many of West Yorkshire's textile towns.
That problem is causing concern in West Yorkshire and it has been brought to the attention of the House on numerous occasions in the last few years. It must be tackled and can be tackled only by Government intervention and by achieving the sort of objectives spelled out so clearly by the Minister. We must remember that my hon. Friend has personal experience of these matters as the representative of a constituency in the heart of the Lancashire textile belt.
The debate comes at a time of continuing anxiety about the outcome of the MFA that does not include at least one country—Singapore—which is concerned with the documents that we are debating. We all wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the renegotiations, but there has been a certain complacency in the debate about the prospects of success. We have heard that serious reservations are being expressed, not least by America. Nor can we be complacent about the unity that we shall find among our Community colleagues in the approach to the renegotiations, so no one who reads the report of our debate should be misled by the apparent prevailing agreement.
We are united behind the objectives laid down by the Minister and we endorse the tough negotiating posture of the Government. It would be a serious error for anyone, whether our colleagues in the Community or those with whom we shall be negotiating, to think that we might lie down in front of an agreement that did not secure the objectives spelled out by the Minister. Anyone who imagines that there is not very strong feeling about these matters is doing a serious injustice to himself and to those whom he represents. We are faced with a mass of extremely complex papers that are not


easily assimilated at first reading. It is clear that in at least two cases—those relating to jute products from Bangladesh and India—the United Kingdom industry has expressed anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has referred to these matters at length, but it is important that they should be put on the record and that we should repeat the reservations expressed by the United Kingdom industry as contained in the explanatory memoranda to the documents. The document relating to Bangladesh says:
The United Kingdom industry were fully consulted during the negotiations and have accepted the terms of the new agreement, but, mainly because of the increase in the ceilings, without great enthusiasm.
The document on India says:
The industry has reluctantly accepted the terms of the new Agreement. Their concern is mainly about the effect on the United Kingdom market of the increase in ceilings, especially the new ceiling for decorative fabric. In addition to the 10 per cent. annual increase in the ceiling for jute fabrics, there was a further increase of 12 per cent. and the creation of a new ceiling for decorative fabric added another 27 per cent.".
I hope that the concern of the industry will be acted upon by the Government before these matters are finalised.
There must be concern not only that Singapore is outside the MFA. So, too, are an increasing number of other countires, including Morocco, the Philippines, Thailand, Puerto Rico and others. These are the countries with the growth potential. We should consider the coverage of the MFA before the renegotiations are concluded, because it may be that there are countries outside the arrangement which should be included in the main agreement. It may be that it is not feasible to go on negotiating bilateral agreements outside the main agreement.

Mr. Winterton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some danger that countries which reach their quotas under the MFA, and the renegotiated MFA, will seek to increase their trade by re-routing their goods through a country which is not yet a member of the MFA and that that country may be allocated quotas not for its own manufactured products but for those coming from countries that have already exceeded their quota?

Mr. Madden: That is a very real possibility. It is one of a number of developments within world textiles. I hope to refer briefly to another matter before I conclude my remarks. But that is very much on the cards and it is something of which we should take account. It should be recognised in the negotiations.
We all agree that the MFA needs to be toughened considerably. The reasons for this are clear and have been aired. But I would just point to the interesting dvelopments that have occured since 1973. Since then textile and clothing imports into the United Kingdom have doubled in value and 100,000 jobs have been lost. Those are the two important factors that should not be overlooked or dismissed but should remain in our minds when we are considering just how tough we need to be in these renegotiations.
We must insist on a far bigger share of our domestic market, bearing in mind that the most liberal trade policies practised by the United Kingdom over many years have been tolerated by British textile workers. We have made a major contribution to the textile industries of developing countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made that clear in his speech.
I also believe that the textile industries of some European countries have shrunk to either their minimum viable size or are dangerously near that point. That is certainly the case in the United Kingdom.
I shall not go into the details, which are spelt out in a most interesting booklet which has recently been published by the Textile Industry Support Campaign called "Stop the Flood". I am sure the Minister has seen a copy of that document. It sets out a six-point programme urging certain targets in the renegotiation of the MFA. These are:
Fix a maximum permitted level for all imports.
Establish global quotas.
Relate the level of imports in any year to the state of the market.
Permit unilateral restraints.
Include the right of importing countries to use the safeguard clauses.
Use more realistic base periods.
Some of these points have been fully dealt with by the Minister in his remarks. Others have not been touched on. I ask


my hon. Friend to consider that document and its demands in detail before coming to a final view on the course that he intends to pursue.
Dumping has weighed heavily in this debate, as it rightly should. It has long been a matter of concern to all of us who represent textile constituencies. There has been too much complacency about the effects of transferring primary responsibility on dumping to the Common Market, which will occur in July. I hope that that will rouse the Department of Trade, which has been dominated by a free trade philosophy over many years. To expect the Common Market—which is based on free trade, the free movement of capital and labour and free marketing—to adopt a more protectionist or restrictive policy is to live in a fool's paradise. I therefore warn the Minister and every hon. Member who represents a textile constituency not to be too sanguine about the policies that we must have if we are to act more effectively on dumping and low cost overseas textiles.

Mr. Noble: An improvement in the anti-dumping procedures is essential, but does not my hon. Friend agree that if every real case was pursued satisfactorily and speedily, that would only make a marginal change in the amount of textiles coming in? What is important is to ensure that the MFA is toughened so that we can deal with across-the-board situations rather than those on the fringes.

Mr. Madden: I agree, but it is necessary to have effective anti-dumping measures which can be used quickly when problems arise. We have all had reason to believe that that has not been the case to date with blatant examples of dumping. However, I take my hon. Friend's main point and agree with him entirely.
In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said that the routing of textiles through third countries which were not members of the MFA posed a continuing problem about which we must be wary, let me say that another development about which we must be concerned is the possibility of textile countries overseas, looking for ways of getting round the toughened rules which may be adopted under the MFA, perhaps of getting round the toughened anti-dumping

legislation which may be introduced in future, and adopting new ways of breaking into the British market.
I have reason to be involved in a constituency situation which indicates that in future overseas textile manufacturers may be inclined to acquire British textile firms and to use those firms and the labels on their products to distribute imported goods in the United Kingdom. That poses considerable problems. Plainly, it poses a considerable threat to employment in this country's textile industry.
The powers of the Government to intervene in a situation of that sort are pitifully weak. Therefore, I urge the Minister in considering these matters which are directly relevant to the developing textile picture against which we must guard to ensure that our legislation is capable of stopping such a threat which will be manifest if we do not take decisive action to combat it.
I thank the Minister for his speech. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale in saying that it was the most informed and helpful speech on the textile industry that I have heard since I became a Member in February 1974. I hope that what he said will not be left to gather dust in Hansard. I hope that his speech will be distributed throughout the industry, not only among management, but to the trade unions and workers in the industry. It offers a little hope. It offers constructive proposals to deal with the problems of the textile industry. It offers an alternative to the decline of the industry and the worries and anxieties with which people in the industry have lived for many years. I trust that it will give some hope to the industry and to the workers that somebody cares.
I am glad that it is the Government who seem to be caring. I hope that the fine words will be translated into action in Brussels and that we shall achieve the objectives set by the Minister.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey): It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who inevitably makes pungent contributions to our debates on textiles. I only feel at odds with him in his somewhat uncharitable reference to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in giving a somewhat more glowing picture of the


textile industry than the hon. Member for Sowerby and many others would believe to be justified. The hon. Gentleman should allow himself the belief that his eloquence on previous occasions about the gloom and despondency in the textile industry was so good that it has penetrated the thinking of a number of my hon. Friends who have not his detailed knowledge of the industry.
It is therefore not surprising that anyone going to Yorkshire or Lancashire to view the industry at first hand should see a more modern, thrusting and thriving industry than impressions given in the House have led people to believe. However, that is not to say that the general substance of the debate is not vital to a consideration of the future of the textile industry.
The Minister rightly came to the House today and set out very fully the Government's view on the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. If the hon. Member for Sowerby ought to consider one matter, it is that in the successful achievement of the negotiations the Minister should have half an eye on the fact that the overall majority of the Government is not great and that what he would most strongly urge would be an agreement across the Floor of this House, and among other parties as well, so that the objectives to be set out on behalf of the United Kingdom textile industry should be pursued with vigour, whichever party was in office.
I think that the Minister has that agreement here today in that what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said was, on all major points, to back the Government fully in the stand which they propose to take in renegotiating the MFA. When it comes to lengthening the period of agreement, altering the base period calculations, taking a global view about burden-sharing and tightening up anti-dumping procedures, all are within a general bipartisan approach to the future of the textile industry. That bipartisan approach is one of the more fruitful results of this debate. I hope that this conclusion will be reached and will be seen to have been reached on the proposals before the House.
Let me take the Minister back a little into the reason why this is so crucial. I

do not share the view which is widely expressed that we are here talking about a total exercise in survival. I do not think that that is the case. The resourcefulness of the industries—and they are many—is such that they have shown themselves capable of surviving very difficult trading circumstances time and time again over their long industrial history. After all, the textile industries were in at the very birth of the Industrial Revolution.
But the problems which the industries face today are not just the normal cyclical problems associated with the textile market, with the fluctuations in primary ray material prices or with the difficulties of marketing finished products. Today they have to face the fact—they are not alone in this, though it is much more aggravated than in any other industry—that through the post-war period we have seen industries which historically arc very old and which have not been able in the last 10 or 15 years to regenerate themselves. At the same time, however, they have to compete with industries which have been established in other countries with the most modern technology available and with efficient work forces, whatever their rates of pay may be.
I thought that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) was moving on to dangerous ground when he suggested that we ought to unload to our competitors the costs which we ourselves carry in terms of the social wage and so on. In the end, that produces a parity of price and product which means that there is no competitive edge available to the United Kingdom. We have to recognise that these industries have been established in markets with new technology, with good modern plant and with efficient work forces, with the result that in the end they are producing extremely competitive products.
It would be wrong to assume that all that we require is a satisfactory renegotiation of the MFA and that we can put aside the anxieties about marketing our products to a price and to a specification satisfactory to consumers in world markets. That is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the Government using their strength, backed, I trust, by the Opposition, to get the best possible Multifibre Arrangement with our EEC partners so that they can negotiate


it effectively with outside countries. That should provide the necessary breathing space and help the regeneration of our own industries to become complete.
The Government will know that the Wool Textile Industry Scheme—naturally, representing the constituency that I do, I speak more of the wool textile side—is yet far from bearing fruit. I think that £23 million was spent in the end on the Section 8 scheme for the wool textile industry. In addition, the Government have in more recent times, devoted £20 million to the clothing industry. These schemes represent a major portion of Government investment. Throughout the whole industry, the reaction to the Government initiative of the Section 8 scheme has multiplied several-fold. In the last two years, investment of £75 million has been put into the whole textile sector and this investment is massive in relation to the history of the industry. But it will take time to produce results.
It is crucial to allow the renegotiated MFA and other policies in GATT to which I shall refer later, to provide an international framework within which the domestic industry can seek to obtain results from the massive change in investment policy. It is no good relying on Section 8 of the Industry Act or ill-fated planning agreements to rescue an industry like this. The real drive in rescuing the industry is the drive to obtain adequate profit, and thus adequate investment and more jobs.
We cannot stem the decline in employment in the whole textile sector—and it has gone down to 80,000 at the last count; we cannot stem this annual substantial slide by devices of the kind I have mentioned. We must restore to individual managers and workers the confidence that there is a future for the industry and a belief that if the Government set the international side right the domestic side will see adequate profits at the end of the tunnel—and the tunnel must be a short one. It is within the Government's own policies of industrial restraint that many of tomorrow's problems in the textile industry must clearly arise.
The complexity of the MFA is shown by the fact that it is so difficult to achieve agreement. There are 17 Commission documents before us, including

those dealing with Macao, Malaysia and South Korea. It is a nightmare. This is a battle which must be fought on two fronts. It must be fought by the Government arriving at the correct negotiating posture—we are heartened by what Ministers have said today—and it must be fought by the Government's strength and will, within the EEC context of the agreements, to negotiate in this manner for the United Kingdom industry.
How I wish sometimes that we were French artichoke farmers. If we were, there is no doubt that the EEC would bend to our requirements, after we had pushed barrow-loads of rotting artichokes through the corridors of Brussels. There is no doubt that something happens when there is a movement in France to help an industry that is in difficulty.
We are seeking from the Government some indication that they are committed not only to the nicety of their negotiating position but to the determination and courage which a successful renegotiation of the arrangement requires. I trust that the Government will show that sense of commitment and courage. If they do not, I hope that we Conservatives will show it if and when we have a chance to do so.
The European scene is crucial, and that is why the emphasis is on burden-sharing arrangements and, taking a global view, stopping up the loophole which results from third countries acting as "post-boxes" for textile products. It is important to get the Europeans to agree to these things. We must try to renegotiate the MFA with great care and skill.
It is all too easy to lapse—and we on this side lapse perhaps rather too easily —into the use of free trade as a concept. I do not believe that free trade ever existed or ever will exist. It is a nice, useful catch-phrase which usually disguises the fact that in any market of the world, if one looks at the range of commodities imported, one will find that there are restrictions. There are licensing and surveillance arrangements, quotas, administrative difficulties and enormous bureaucracy. There are also difficulties at consular level in diplomatic terms.
Practically every country now trading has its way of restricting access to its market. What we are seeking must not


run counter to the generality of free trading arrangements. There must be on textile products the same kind of restraint as in most other orderly markets. We seek that as of right because we can prove our contributions in terms of 850,000 jobs and the regional spread of those jobs, which is crucial. Those jobs are in the South-West, the Scottish Borders, the North-West, West Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: And Ulster.

Mr. Shaw: And Ulster, as my hon. and learned Friend says. Employment considerations in the textile industry have important regional repercussions. Against this background we deserve to have these arrangements renegotiated on our behalf when we reach the GATT Tokyo round. I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives so that textiles are included in the Tokyo negotiations. There is a body of opinion in the United States that may seek to prevent that happening, although recently there has been some welcome comment pointing to a changed attitude.
When we go to Tokyo for the GATT negotiations, we must press hard—this is not inconsistent with what I have been saying—for reductions in tariffs and restraints on textiles where they are blatantly operated in other countries. There is no question that the United States tariff—it could be lower following the Tokyo round—is vindictive on wool and wool clothing. Any reduction would have a substantial effect on employment prospects and the viability of many textile companies in the areas from which I come.
That view is not inconsistent with the fact that the MFA should be renegotiated on tougher lines. All I am saying is that we should persuade our partners to require some degree of single-minded help to these industries in the textile sector—assistance which most other countries provide for their major industries. We should ask for nothing more and nothing less. This is not an anti-free trade move but a demonstration that what we require is fair trading conditions in a framework that is seen to be fair.
I recognise the niceties of new arrangements with precision as to the base period and a recession clause. I do not like that phrase, and I would prefer to call it a flexibility or review clause to allow arrangements to be reviewed from time to time when markets change. We recognise that this involves difficult judgments. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government and on industries to get together and, with one voice, clarify what they require in detail.
There has been a welcome trend among the textile industries in the various sectors to co-operate, and the British Textile Confederation is the one body that seeks to represent all the various views in the industry. I cannot speak with the same conviction about the clothing industry, which still has a considerable distance to go before it can present to the Government a clear and united policy on renegotiation. It is no good saying that the Government do not understand what is wanted if the industry does not present its arguments with sufficient force and clarity.
If these Multifibre Arrangements mean anything, they mean that at some point we must arrive at a decision based upon the length and breadth of opinion in the textile sectors. It is of substantial importance to the industries that they recognise that they have a major rôle to play in coming together and forming a concerted judgment about the factors that are important to their sector and seeing that the Government are given their views with clarity and precision.
I welcome this debate. It is incredibly timely, coming as it does in the run-up to the renegotiating phase. It is important that there should be a partisan agreement on the major requirements so that the Government are backed by unanimity of purpose. There is a good chance that that unanimity may be founded today.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince): Like all other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his speech. I hope that I am not being over-optimistic if I interpret it as a firm indication that this country will no longer be the soft touch for textile imports that


it has been for too long in the past. We heard an entertaining speech from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) who is not now present in the Chamber. He told us that he came to the job knowing very little about it. His interest has been mainly in economics. He is always an entertaining speaker. He says that he comes to his new Shadow job with an uncluttered mind and has already learned a lot about it.
It was either Churchill or Macmillan who, having promoted someone to the rank of Cabinet Minister, was told by that person "I do not know anything about the job." The new Minister was told "That is why I am promoting you. You come to this job without any prejudices and you have a receptive mind. You will be able to take ideas on board and you will do a good job." I wish the hon. Gentleman well and I wish him a long apprenticeship. I do not share his view that he will be changing sides shortly. I hope that the public will return a Labour Government when the time comes and thus help to ease the burden for everyone and give the hon. Member for St. Ives more time to settle in.
The hon. Member for St. Ives told us that he had been going around the country looking at mills and factories. He is finding out that the textile industry is a highly technical industry with an immense amount of capital. We all know that, while the workers are not supine, their industrial relations record is second to none. The tragedy is that they have had to suffer so much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) touched on something we tend to forget. He spoke of the debt, if I can call it that, which we owe to the Third World. That debt, if it ever existed, has been more than honourably discharged. We have heard the figures. They show that, with a 66 per cent. import penetration, our record is not matched by any other industrialised Western country. The comparable figure for the United States is 15 per cent. and for the EEC overall it is 35 per cent. It is important to remember that many of the people from these poorer countries have settled in this country and work in the textile industry. If that industry collapses, it will present serious problems for our urban reconstruction programme and probably for race relations. I believe,

therefore, that we have discharged our debt in two ways.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned Courtaulds and its track records in exporting and in investment in this country. No one will expect me to cheer when Courtaulds is mentioned. I do not say that it should be condemned out of hand, but I think most hon. Members know that no constituency in the last two years has suffered more from the cruel lash of unemployment than mine. Skelmersdale is in my constituency.
Courtaulds closed down a mill in Ince which had been going for three-quarters of a century. I do not think that it has ever had a moment's trouble with the workers there, who by any account were not overburdened by their pay packets. The mill had not been modernised as it should have been, and it became a casualty, with the loss of a few hundred jobs. Everyone knows the tragedy of the closing of the biggest and most modern weaving mill in Europe at Skelmersdale by Courtaulds. Courtaulds has a good record, but I wish that it had done better in one respect.
I think that Courtaulds was gravely at fault in not agreeing to an inquiry into the reasons for the closure of the Skelmersdale mill, because one of the strands of its statement about the closure was the question of imports. It mentioned that the cloth it was manufacturing at Skelmersdale was meeting tremendous import competition, which had risen from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. in 12 months.
An inquiry would have enabled us to get to the bottom of that situation, to establish the facts and to pass a judgment. It was bad that Courtaulds did not agree, but the Government were not over-enthusiastic in bringing the pressure on Courtaulds that they could have brought to bear to hold the inquiry. The Government, by default, must have accepted a very large part of Courtaulds' reasoning.
The object of the debate is to tell the Government from both sides of the House, with strength of feeling, that we are behind them in wanting to get a good Multifibre Arrangement. The need for it has been set out. I believe that the Government have already taken on board, although perhaps in a slightly different way, the case as set out in the pamphlet


we were given by textile industry representatives at a meeting upstairs a couple of weeks ago.
I think that we have to fix a maximum level for imports. I think also that it must be very flexible. We have to have a base which does not go to the most advantaged countries which want to send their goods here. I think that we must average it out and say that that is the base from which we will work. There is no doubt that the present system has caused great tragedies in our textile industries and will continue to do so until we have put it right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke of the effects on the textile industries of what I call our open-ended policy over the years.
On 16th February my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), in a Written Question, asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increase or decrease there had been since 1963 in the totals employed in each of a number of different industries. The industries included mining and quarrying; food, drink, and tobacco; coal and petroleum products; and textiles. The reply showed that in June 1963 there were 728,000 people employed in the textile industry but that in June 1976 the number had fallen to 486,000. In percentage terms, the textile industry showed the biggest loss of employment apart from the mining industry. Mining and quarrying had lost 49·2 per cent. of its total employment while textiles had lost 33·2 per cent.
Those of us with textile firms in our constituencies know that there is still a shadow over the industry. I hope that those firms will obtain some consolation from the debate, but it is action that they want. There is still real fear in the textile towns.
Finally, I turn to the question of surveillance procedures, which I consider to be one of the most important parts of any Multifibre Arrangement or any antidumping agreement. I hope that I may have the attention of the hon. Member for St. Ives. I am not convinced that our present surveillance procedures for examining whether goods are being dumped are as effective as they could or should be. It may be that there are not enough people engaged on surveillance work. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that he

would like a reduction in bureaucracy in this country when much of the responsibility for these matters is transferred to the EEC in July. I do not know about that—I have an open mind on the subject —but I think that the present system is not effective enough.
I shall quote another example of a factory closure in my country, although in this case it concerned the television tube industry. People in the British television tube manufacturing industry said repeatedly that imported tubes were being dumped in this country. I know the technical meaning of "dumping" and how it is established and that one cannot say, simply because a product is being sold more cheaply in this country, that it is automatically a case of dumping. The British television tube manufacturers had given positive proof that tubes were being dumped to the detriment of the British tube manufacturing industry. I concede that they were arguing their own case, but the distilled wisdom and experience of the manufacturers contained sufficient expertise and knowledge to be able to convince anybody.
After a long time and after repeated demands from the manufacturers, we sent investigators to Japan to examine the case against Japanese firms. Our people found that the greatest barrier to establishing the price of manufacture was the vertical nature of the Japanese industry. The cost of manufacturing the television tubes could be hidden in the manufacturing costs of any other commodity, because there was no separate tube manufacturer. There was no way of establishing the proper price of a television tube because there was nothing to which it could be related. It was possible to extrapolate the price from wage increases at a certain date and bring it up to date, or from the cost of increases in raw materials, transport costs or other factors to arrive at a price, but beyond this it was impossible to establish what the real price was. This was because they were what are known as in-house manufacturing units. There were no separate television tube manufacturers as we have them in the United Kingdom.
My factory in Skelmersdale has now closed, and nearly 1,500 jobs have gone. But I am told that there has been a rapid increase in television tube imports and that this substantial rise in imports


from Japan more than reflects what people said were the true costs. In other words, when our market has largely gone, foreign exporters can shove the prices up till they reach something like the true costs. The tragedy is that in the meantime I have lost nearly 1,500 jobs.
One hon. Member pointed out earlier that when a mill closes in a small town the business is often a family concern, having been run for generations by grandfather, father, mother, sons and daughters. It is a tragedy when the whole of a family business and income is wiped out. I have seen that in my constituency with the Empress Mill in Ince, which was a family concern in the employment sense.
I am putting these points to my hon. Friends in the special context of this debate in an effort to exercise their minds on what has to be done. It is all very well to have agreements. If the agreements cannot be policed and enforced, we are better off without them, because to have unenforceable agreements only kids people and when they find out the truth they rise up in anger. I ask the Government, therefore, to make sure that our surveillance techniques will meet the demands which will be put upon them, so that our people can have faith and confidence in them.
We do not want another experience such as I had with television tubes. People felt beyond any doubt that they had a good case, with proof positive that tubes were being dumped on us, but, because of the Japanese manufacturing system, which is a vertical and in-house system, they could not isolate and prove the price of a television tube. They were forced to say that they suspected what was being done, but they could not prove it.
That brings me back to what I said at the beginning. We have always been a soft touch in this country. We have played to the rules. Other countries, sometimes Western countries—it is not always the poor countries which adopt these techniques and make it difficult for goods to get in—seem able to use various devices to our disadvantage. I take on board the comment that we should not necessarily copy them, but if our people are suffering we must meet like with like.

We need a properly enforceable surveillance technique which will make our people realise that they are not being taken advantage of. The people of this country—with 66 per cent. import penetration—have discharged their debt, if it can be called a debt, to the poorer countries of the world, which understandably want to send their products to Britain and every other country. Foreign exporters find this country a particularly favourable place. I understand that within a radius of about two miles they can meet the eight or nine leading importers who can probably account for 90 per cent. of the whole United Kingdom market. That experience cannot be repeated anywhere else in the world. We are, therefore, a particularly vulnerable and attractive market, but we have discharged our duty, if duty it be. I believe that we can now properly call on other nations to take up some of the debt.
What will it profit any of the poorer countries if, by taking on more than we can bear, we lead to the elimination of the British textile industry? As I said, it is a modern industry with over 400,000 people, even now, usefully engaged in it. It is a highly productive industry, an industry with a high rate of investment and a marvellous industrial relations record. What will it profit anyone to see it wiped off the map?
I believe that we have done honourably by other countries, and I hope that this debate will enable Ministers to impress that upon our friends and allies so that they recognise that what we need now is a breathing space. I hope that this debate wlil bring about just that.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen): The Under-Secretary of State for Trade must be a happy man tonight. He made a speech which, I believe, he has been wanting to make ever since he became a Minister but has hitherto not been allowed to make. It was a speech consistent with his constituency interests, with his ideological position and now with Government policy—though not before. It is worth considering for a moment why there has suddenly been this change.
Why have we had tonight from the Treasury Bench different replies from the sort we have had over the last two and a half years? Has the Department of


Trade, which has hitherto been obdurate, suddenly seen the light? It is worth while inquiring into the motives because they will cast some light on the permanency of the change. I fear that it may be only a temporary change and that the Department will revert to the bad old ways when the immediate political need is over. The unworthy thought crossed my mind that the whole of the Labour Party has to be united within the next 24 hours.
If there had not been this concession to Labour Members below the Gangway, there might have been some rather differ-rent results at 10 p.m. tomorrow. I hope that that is not the reason, because if it is it does not betoken much optimism for the future of this new policy. It is an absolute show stopper. It will stop the show about an hour before it should be stopped because normally there are strong and powerful speeches against the Government from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said that he had to put away his sharpshooter because there was nothing to shoot at. There has been a love peace such as I have never known in any textile debate over the last 25 years—

Mr. McGuire: The hon. and learned Member should join it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have joined it, and I am delighted that it has happened. The only jarring note was when the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) said that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was unduly complacent. That was not the right adjective. My hon. Friend said that, coming fresh to the job, he was amazed and delighted at the way this industry, unlike many others, had invested in new equipment. He was delighted to find how well equipped and well invested it was, how its labour relations were good and how it was raring to go, and that given a fair wind it could go. That is not complacent; that is optimistic.
Now, we can all be optimistic because the Government have at last given us grounds. To make a declaration of intention of this importance is obviously only the beginning of the story. But there will be great difficulties in getting over the next steps. The first step—not the most

difficult—is to get our EEC partners to agree in principle. That seems a relatively easy step because their interests are much the same as ours. They do not want an annual growth of 6 per cent. in the penetration of their markets in bad years as well as good, as at present. The difficult step will be after the agreement with the EEC and in the final negotiations—I think that they are called the Geneva negotiations—with the developing countries and with the United States. There, the Government in particular and the EEC in general will need to negotiate very hard.
I know that this is thought to be an indecent question at this stage of any negotiations, but what is the Government's fall-back position? Suppose that they cannot get accepted, for example, their proposal for a global solution of this problem. Suppose that it is not accepted that we cannot go on with the system under which, every time one country is covered, the flood comes in from a new and hitherto untried producer, sometimes producing himself for the first time, sometimes merely acting as a conduit pipe for another older-established producer who has already filled his quota. The Minister rightly said that we could not put up with that any longer and that we must have a world solution.
Nor can we allow an increase of 6 per cent. or whatever the percentage may be in the penetration of our market in bad times as well as in good, or there will be no market left to penetrate because it will be entirely captured after a few years. What is the position if both the Third World and North America simply reject this proposal? I suppose that it means that the Multifibre Arrangement will not be extended and that there will be no agreement when the present arrangement expires in December. If so, where do we go then?
This is not an impertinent or dangerous question to ask because it will strengthen the hands of our negotiators if it is known that our Government are facing this position already and that they have their fallback plans and, if necessary, will tell the Third World what they are. That sort of frankness is not always, but certainly is in these circumstances, the most likely way of procuring the results we want.
As I said, this debate is the most remarkable textile debate we have ever


had. I have not heard one dissentient or rasping voice. In those circumstances, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government and the Minister on this unprecedented and very happy result.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East): I had intended to begin by apologising to my fellow Back Benchers for having been unable to remain during the early part of the debate. However, perhaps that is unnecessary in view of how few have stayed to hear my speech, with perhaps one or two exceptions among the keener textile types.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on a thoughtful speech. He congratulated the Minister, but I thought that he scraped the bottom of the barrel in trying to find an ulterior motive for the Government's action. I shall put his mind at rest. The Minister may have been seeking to persuade me with more gentle methods than have been used elsewhere to support the Government tomorrow, but he has had the same lack of success as the others have had. Despite his encouraging speech, I shall be found in the wrong Lobby tomorrow.
The Minister's speech showed the wind of change that is blowing through the Department. It has encouraged Back Benchers and it will encourage the industry that the Department appears at long last to accept the sensible proposals made for some time by the unions as well as the employers. A remarkable feature of the industry is the degree of co-operation that exists between trade unions and employers, as has been shown by the formation in the Oldham area of the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which has the support of both sides of industry.
My hon. Friend's speech did not surprise me as much as it might have surprised others. He and I share the distinction of representing Oldham, which lies in the heartland of the North-West. We have considerable experience of textile matters. It is of great advantage to the North-West to have my hon. Friend in the Department with responsibility for these matters.
The Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council is very concerned about these matters, as are other bodies involved in textiles. The borough secretary recently

wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry on behalf of the economic development and publicity sub-committee of the council mentioning the 4,000 redundancies which were occurring in Courtauld's and expressing anxiety about the implications.
The letter then said:
The Sub-Committee appreciate that this is a much vexed question and that the Government have previously been reluctant to introduce selective import controls. However, in view of the worsening employment situation, which would seriously affect Oldham, the Sub-Committee are of the firm opinion that strong measures i.e. selective import controls have now become necessary.
This is not a Labour-controlled metropolitan borough council. I regret to say that the Tory Party is now the largest party on the council, although the Labour Party and the Liberal Party together match it in numbers. However, I regard the council as being Tory-controlled.
The Secretary of State replied through his Under-Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) In a fairly lengthy letter, my hon. Friend explained the points that he set out at the beginning of his speech tonight. The letter detailed the remarkable measures that the Government have taken over the years. Many of these measures may not have been as effective as we should have wished. However, we hear them recited on occasions.
In addition to dealing with those matters, my hon. Friend said in the letter:
I am well aware, for example, that the cotton industry whose fortunes are of particular concern to the people of Oldham, has two special worries. First, there are a number of long-standing restrictions on cotton yarn imports from traditional suppliers such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong which are due to be phased out by 31st March under the terms of the MFA. I fully understand the sensitivity of imports in this sector and we are at present discussing with our EEC partners what arrangements might be made to regulate imports into the United Kingdom after the end of March. Secondly, the British Textile Employers' Association has drawn our attention to the effect of Indian export subsidies on cotton yarn, fabric and made-up goods on the competitiveness of our own industries. Officials in my Department are giving the BTEA application for countervailing action urgent consideration and a decision will be made as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend has indicated that the Government are already moving in this direction.


The letter continued:
… you will also be interested in the future of the MFA itself as the present arrangement expires at the end of 1977. In its existing form it has not been without shortcomings and we are, therefore, pressing for substantial improvements, in particular to secure protection against the cumulative effect of low-cost imports and a reduction of quota growth rates in certain circumstances. I think that an MFA strengthened along these lines would, if it could be negotiated, provide the best framework for safeguarding the interests of our industry in the long-term.
That letter was written some weeks ago and is an indication of the Government moving in the direction that has been set out this evening. It was not such a surprise to me when I heard my hon. Friend's remarks. Since 21st January, when the letter was written, the Government have moved even further. My hon. Friend's remarks were even stronger than those contained in the letter. I welcome them and I am sure that the industry will do so as well.
The British Textile Confederation has been in touch with hon. Members on many occasions and with the all-party Cotton and Allied Textile Committee, of which I am the chairman. It has outlined matters that have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and has stated how it would like to see the Multifibre Arrangements strengthened.
The Confederation wants to see the continuation of the arrangement. It sees the need for special measures to take account of high-import penetration in especially sensitive sectors. It recognises the need to contain imports from potentially disruptive new suppliers. It sees the need for the complete concept of total import penetration, the need for the method of negotiating bilateral agreements to be reviewed and the need for a greater flexibility clause.
The confederation continues to make the interesting point that there is a growing realisation within the other countries within the EEC, such as Germany, France and even Italy, that there is very great danger to the textile industry. As a result, our appeals have been greatly strengthened by the support of the Common Market body. It has accepted the four major points put forward by the British textile industry, which has greatly delighted the industry.
The industry feels confident that the Government will go forward strengthened by what has happened in this country and in the Common Market. It is determined to show the Americans, who are a rather disruptive influence in the negotiations, that, while penetration in the American market may be small and may lead them to seek some political advantage in countries such as Taiwan, there is a strength of feeling here and in other countries in the EEC that will not brook the Americans forcing us to accept a Multifibre Arrangement in line with the present one. There are many motives for the American attitude, including the fact that it is largely American capital that has financed the expansion of the textile industry in Taiwan. All that has been said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Government has heartened us. We want to see the textile industry in Britain and in the rest of the EEC get a fair deal.
It may well be said that there are two sides to the coin. I hope that we shall do what we can to help developing countries. We do not want to make them any poorer. If there is some way in which we can help them without irretrievably damaging our own industry, I am sure that the textile workers in the North-West would wish to do what they can. They have a long history of standing up for the underprivileged. I do not suppose that they want to go back to that now. On the other hand, they do not want to see their own jobs disappear. If the Government are not successful in their negotiations for a new agreement, I am afraid that that is what will happen.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has a double incentive. He has the textile industry to protect and he has his own people in Oldham, West to look after. It is with considerable confidence that I accept all that he has said tonight as being in the right spirit.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton): My depth of knowledge of the textile industry is meagre, as I represent a mining constituency, but for generations the daughters of miners have gone into Leeds or the surrounding area to work in the ready-made clothing industry. Leeds used to be, and probably still is, the largest ready-made clothing centre in the world. During the 1914–18 war it was


aways said that if one saw a soldier, one saw someone whose uniform was made in Leeds, and the same could have been said during the last war.
In the 1950s, some of our clothing centres found that there was a need to move into other districts, particularly in my constituency and the North-East. Clothing factories were set up there, but we are now feeling the pinch.
Last year I attended a textile exhibition where I saw suits that were being imported at a wholesale price of £7 to £11. It is impossible for the clothiers of Leeds to compete with such prices. I am pleased that we are beginning to take account of some of these facts.
We have exported machinery and know-how to some of the emerging countries. We know that the people there must live, but our people, too, must live. No one can say that those working in the textie industries are overpaid. Throughout my constituency many clothing workers are out of work. It is an ageing industry in that the number of people on the point of retiring form a high percentage of the work force. It is well-night impossible to pay the right wage to attract young people in to the industry in view of the keen competition. We do not mind fair competition, but when low-priced suits were imported they played havoc with some of our clothing manufacturers. Question were asked in the House, but little notice was taken. I am pleased that something is now to be done. Most people appreciate a good suit and recognise one when they see one.
There is no doubt that the tailoring industry in this country can compete fairly with any in the world. Some worsted manufacturers do quite a good export trade with Japan and America. But we are concerned about the average man and the average boy and his purchase of a decent suit. He can purchase one, but it is coming from abroad at a price that cannot be matched here if the manufacturer is to make a profit. The Government must take cognisance of this fact.
As I have said, my knowledge of textiles is limited, but many women, particularly young women, who are out of work in Leeds and the surrounding areas of Normanton-Rothwell have asked me whether something will not be done to

stop the inflow of suits that must have been subsidised. Those suits must have been seen by those who examined them to constitute unfair competition. I hope that we shall be given a fair chance to compete not only in our own country but abroad. If the industry is to be kept alive—I will not say "prosper"—it must be given a fair chance to exist.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley): I want to say only a few words and to pick up the theme that has already been followed by one or two other hon. Members, namely, that in discussing textiles we are discussing a matter of great importance to the Third World and to developing countries. A number of hon. Members have made reference to this, but it is important to stress how vital the industry is to some of the poorest countries of the Third World
I wish to make just a few remarks about document S/1882/76, which deals with the agreement with Bangladesh on jute and jute products. The essence of the agreement is that the Common Market tariff on these products will be gradually demolished and reduced to zero, as it is already for the United Kingdom. In return, Bangladesh has undertaken to exercise some restraint on the export of jute fabrics, particularly carpet backing and furnishing fabrics, and to get exports to an agreed level—subject to future discussions between the Community and Bangladesh if there seems to be any threat to the agreement.
It is important to remind the House how vital jute is to Bangladesh and also that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the Third World. Jute represents between 85 and 90 per cent. of Bangladesh's total export earnings and is worth about $400 million a year to the country. About 2 million acres of the country are planted with jute and the industry employs about 25,000 people. One must add to that number the dependants who rely on the earnings of those workers in the industry.
Bangledesh's need for export earnings has been considerably increased by its trade deficit and problems with oil imports that have hit many developing countries. During the 1950s and the 1960s there was a rising demand for jute and its products, but, unfortunately,


the market was hit—as so many other natural material markets have been hit—by synthetics. That caused considerable difficulties, which were compounded by the problems that arose in the political conflict between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh as an independent country.
Jute was, unfortunately, one of the few commodities that did not enjoy substantial price increases during the commodity boom of 1974 to 1975. Although the Bangladesh Government tried to combat inflation by pushing up the export price of raw jute, that drove consumers back into synthetics, and the price had to fall again.
Since mid-1975 the international sales of carpet and hessian have improved. It is important that research should be carried out into new uses for jute and that there should be more intensive marketing of this important commodity. These are matters that are partly the responsibility of the Bangladesh Government, but they are also partly the responsibility of the nations that use the commodity. We should also bear in mind that jute is one of the commodities specified in the integrated programme that was broadly accepted by the industrial countries at the UNCTAD IV conference in Nairobi last year. To that extent we have a responsibility to honour the obligations that were accepted in principle.
The fact that we are to take some increased imports is helpful and useful, even with the limitations of the agreement. That is particularly so because one of the great problems of developing countries is not merely the export of raw materials as such, but the export of goods manufactured from raw materials, which greatly enhances their earnings.
The Front Bench speakers mentioned some of the development issues, and I hope that these will not be lost sight of in the serious difficulties facing the textile industry in this country. I appreciate the anxieties of my hon. Friends from textile constituencies and I understand that 800,000 people are employed in the industry—many more than I had appreciated. However, if we are to have a flourishing world economy, the enormous importance of textiles to many Third World countries must be recognised. I

have quoted Bangladesh as an example because it is the poorest of the poor, but there are other developing countries that depend heavily on textiles and textile exports for the prosperity of their people.
I close with a plea that this aspect of the overall problem should not be forgotten when we express our proper concern for our own constituencies and industries.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth): I apologise for my late arrival, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I have not heard most of the speeches in the debate.
Most hon. Members know that I have had considerable personal experience in the textile industry. About one-third of my constituents are employed in the industry, particularly the hosiery and knitwear sectors. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred to me and to the part that I played in contributing some of the thoughts that he put forward from the Opposition Front Bench.
It seems that all hon. Members who have spoken have been agreed on the need to take action. The Minister made a positive statement on that aspect and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made his contribution. Perhaps this suggests that we are something of a protectionist lobby. All hon. Members who have spoken have a fairly strong constituency textile interest, but it would be a pity if there were a common belief at the end of the debate that we were concerned only to safeguard our own. I do not believe that to be so.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and no doubt Government Members will have argued, as I argue, for measures to provide fair trading for our textile industry. By that we mean protection not against dumping, for which measures are available, albeit they are not taken as quickly as they might be, but against competition from low-cost imports which the exporting countries generally consider fair but which, in the context of our textile industry, are not fair.
We can compete in this country. The hosiery and knitwear trades have a fine record and have increased exports this year by nearly 50 per cent. to a record


£200 million—a good contribution to our exports. Unfortunately, the industry has been hard hit by imports from the Far East and the many new countries that have come upon the scene and that are not parties to the MFA. What we need is a policy that allows us to adapt our ways of producing textiles but does not allow this historic and important industry to go under. For pretty well all the time that I have been in this House I myself have argued for a system of orderly marketing. I must admit that I argued in vain with my colleagues in the previous Conservative Administration.
One of the advantages of going into the EEC was the establishment of the MFA and the burden-sharing agreements. My own view is that what was established under the MFA was generally successful except, of course, that it was established far too late and, because the negotiations took so long, the volume of imports during the base period of 1974 was far too great.
We must encourage the Minister for so long as he has this responsibility to

see that the negotiations are first brought to a rapid conclusion and, when we are using the new base period, that we do not fall into the same fault as before. We must accelerate these negotiations.
I shall not go into the various aspects of the renegotiations and the objectives for which we are looking. I believe that what those in the hosiery and knitwear industry would want more than anything else is some form of recession or flexibility clause. I should like to accent that and to ask the that negotiators should particularly press for something which, when our own industry is in recession, would allow for at least a stop in the rate of increase in imports of whatever particular commodities are affected. That is one prize that we must seek in these negotiations.
I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene in the debate. The textile industry and, indeed, the clothing industry, embracing about 800,000 people, are far too important not to receive Government attention. I believe that they now have the attention they deserve, apparently from both sides of the House.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton (Cheadle): In accordance with the custom of the House, I declare an interest in the subject matter of this debate—the textile industry. Two weeks ago I was appointed rapporteur of the Economic Affairs Committee in the European Parliament on this subject. The House will no doubt be encouraged to know that after the preparation of any report a major debate on the Community textile industry will be held in the May sitting of the Parliament.
Within the time allotted, I propose to deal with the contributions from this side of the House under three separate headings. The first is the procedural aspect. We are debating Community legislation although it relates to domestic difficulties of which we are painfully aware. Secondly, I shall briefly underline and reinforce the many points which have been made in this extremely valuable and far-ranging debate. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on them. It is appropriate to comment on the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who referred to the bipartisan and objective approach which has been the characteristic of all speeches today.
I reinforce the demand for an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that the Government are aware of the problems of this major sector of British industry and are prepared to use their best endeavours to solve them. It was a little unfair, and certainly totally groundless, for the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) to say that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was complacent. My hon. Friend may be open to criticism on other grounds, but he has the unanimous support of my hon. Friends in the view that complacency does not come within his vocabulary.
I wish to touch on the procedural aspects of this debate. We are debating the procedures which apply to the consideration of European Community legislation. I hope that no Labour Member will think it awry that I should say that I deeply regret the absence from the debate of hon. Members opposite who, with my hon. Friends and I, play a part in the European Parliament. I know that they have essential political rôles to play in Europe today, and I hope that that is why

they are absent. I should like these debates to bring together the representatives of the respective parties in the European Parliament. Debates of this sort would be the richer and better if the usual channels were to consider giving members of the European Parliament greater opportunities to make contributions.
Secondly, it is a great disappointment to find from Hansard that it is almost 18 months since we last debated this extremely important subject within the framework of Community legislation. I hope that the House will resolve that such a lapse of time will not be repeated.
Thirdly, I note that two of the Community documents on the Table are presented for consideration and for the House to express a view on them prior to their submission to and acceptance by the Council of Ministers. This is a highly commendable procedure. Some critics would wish to bring every piece of Community legislation before the House for consideration and debate. I do not feel that that is or ever need be a normal procedure for Community legislation. Two of the proposals are of major interest to one part of the United Kingdom, Dundee, where the jute industry is situated, and it is right that the views of hon. Members should be presented forcefully to the Government.
I do not see these documents as being trivial or irrelevant. They represent what is largely consequential legislation in the sense that it flows from major policy strategies which have been discussed and debated at the level of the Council of Ministers, and which then requires implementation at the nuts and bolts level by the Commission and, naturally, endorsement of such action by the Council of Ministers.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have challenged the Government. In my view, they have done so in the best possible spirit. I cannot help feeling that this debate has produced the most challenging and constructive contributions that I have heard for a long time. Nevertheless, one grain of sentiment has run through all the contributions, and it is the deep disquiet of hon. Members about the handling of trade policy matters by the Government in terms of the textile industry.


Before any hon. Member attempts to intervene, let me make it plain that I am not trying to score any party point. I mean that this is the responsibility of the Government and that it is totally unjustifiable for critics of our membership of the EEC to invoke the fact that we are now under EEC rules. Those rules, those interpretations of rules and the formulation of policies are as much our responsibility in this House as they have ever been, and I believe that for Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, whichever party is in office, they represent a greater responsibility than ever before. It is the responsibility of Ministers to use their persuasive powers, to have the courage of their convicitions and to mobilise all the forces at their disposal to persuade the Ministers of other member States.
This is an area, in other words, in which we have an opportunity to influence at the highest and broadest level. If Ministers fail to do that, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have every justification for being ultra-critical of them. If we as a Community make the wrong decisions, it will be due in large measure to wrong, inappropriate or inept representation of British industry's interests in the European forum.
In this context, it is appropriate to say that this House and the other place are the longstop to catch out any ineptitude or any ineffectiveness of representation of our interests at the level of the Council of Ministers—to catch those tricky balls or googlies which happen to slip past what I describe as the wicket-keeper, the European Parliament. This wicket-keeper in Europe is not yet fully recognised. Regrettably, it is not fully understood in this House that it has that precise rôle to play.
The United Kingdom has at least three means of making heard the voice of Britain's industries as a whole or selectively. First we have the Ministers, as between Governments. Secondly we have this House and this kind of debate. Thirdly we have and should use our colleagues from both sides of the House in the European Community and the institutions outside this country.
I come briefly to the debate. I say "briefly" because I feel that the debate has been extremely comprehensive and

far-ranging. It requires little more than the underlining of just a few of the points which have been made, with the addition of two or three which still require to be made.
We all know that it is extremely easy for any Opposition to criticise any Government. But it is thoroughly appropriate tonight to say that the content of the speech made by the Minister in opening the debate showed clearly that the Government were thoroughly aware of all the problems surrounding the textile industry and the appropriate solutions. The only ground on which we can criticise the Government is that we are not sure whether they have the will or ability to pursue the promotion of these solutions in the right forum. We shall anxiously await the outcome of their contributions at Council of Ministers level in formulating policies appropriate for this great industry.

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Member take note of the fact that the Government are now lined up with the policies of the Labour Party outside, the TUC, the textile unions and the textile employers? We welcome the conversion of the Tory Party.

Mr. Normanton: I do not think that there is much chance of my being drawn on that one. There is ample evidence to show that, if there has been a conversion, it may well have been by the present Government and that it is very much a last-minute conversion.
I shall concentrate on three points which were mentioned in the debate. Our United Kingdom procedures for dealing with dumping remind me of the old test that was applied to witchcraft. If the woman was ducked and survived the ducking, the devil was responsible and she would have to die. If she was ducked and died as a result, she could not be a witch because witches could not drown. To succeed in a textile anti-dumping action, the main hurdle which has to be cleared is that the applicant has received a mortal injury. Clearly that is arrant nonsense.
I urge the House to look at the action taken by the European Commission in connection with the appeal for the adoption of anti-dumping measures to help the Community's ball-bearing industry. That is an industry which has


hardly been scratched by comparison with the textile industry, yet within six weeks of that appeal being submitted action had been started by the Community, which is not yet the responsible body for dealing with anti-dumping measures. That responsibility will be given to it on 1st July.
The real meat in the sandwich of regulations on the table is the MFA—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has quoted a very good example of the EEC being prepared to act speedily. Would he give an assurance to the House that in his opinion the EEC will act as quickly on textiles?

Mr. Normanton: I share my hon. Friend's feelings and I hope that it will be possible to produce documentary evidence not long after the May sitting of the European Parliament to link representations made by representatives from both sides of this House and in the European Parliament and representations on behalf of COMITEXTIL. I take great encouragement from and am greatly stimulated by the evidence of a will to act which manifested itself in the reaction to the Japanese ball-bearing threat.
I urge the Minister to give the strongest possible undertaking to the House and to the textile industry generally that he will use his powers in every sense of the word, particularly his powers of persuasion. Perhaps he will press his fellow Ministers in the Council to take action. We hope that he will give us that assurance tonight. The power certainly exists in this sphere, and there is a willingness in the Community to identify and to reach appropriate measures to deal with the textile industry of Europe as a whole.
If I may take a nonpartisan view, I believe that no Government in the last 20 years have come up with the appropriate answers, difficult though some of the solutions may be.
We must learn from experience, however bitter and painful it may be. The lesson to be learned is that tariffs per se, of themselves in isolation from other measures, are totally useless. Therefore, quotas of necessity are an integral part, along with tariffs, of whatever package finally emerges from the GATT-MFA.

We must insist that the formula that quotas should float when the industry is sinking is not an acceptable situation for the people of this country or of the industry as a whole. Therefore, we must insist on incorporating into the MFA a rise-and-fall formula. This point has already been examined by both sides of the House. Furthermore, there must be no carry-over of unused quotas from year to year. The fact is that those unused quotas hang over the industry like the sword of Damocles.
I wish to comment on one area which is not generally the subject of control—namely, handloom woven goods. Indian goods of this nature are generally exempted. The definition of hand-woven goods requires serious examination. It leaves far too much scope for circumvention of international textile agreements. Furthermore, the definition of origin leaves much to be desired. Basically, because of the inadequacy of these rules, there is a totally unacceptable practice of misusing certificates of origin. They are not acceptable and they have little credibility. This matter needs serious investigation at Customs level, because it is at Customs level that goods enter the EEC.
We all agree that the Government and the Community are committed to trade liberalisation. We are also committed to economic aid for the development of the Third World, but it does not help that development if we seek to finance the establishment of new textile plant, whether for man-made fibres or natural fibres, and if that production is aimed exclusively at the European industrial territories to the detriment and destruction of our industries. That does not make sense, and I urge the Government seriously to rethink our industrial overseas aid policies.
Far too much money is coming from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other world agencies and is being put into textiles. That is not the right manner in which to concentrate the industrialisation process. The Multifibre Arrangement covers the regulation of exports from certain signatory States. Why not include the right for the European textile industries, as producers of exports, to sell back into those same countries the sophisticated products from Europe? Perhaps not everyone would agree with the concept, but it is rather reminiscent of the situation in which


one is trying to defend without recognising that offence is an equally important aspect of defence.
The British textile industry can compete. It needs but the equal opportunities to do so—a point made by at least two of my hon. Friends in the debate. The erosion of the European textile industry is no new phenomenon. It has lasted for 25 years or more to my personal and bitter knowledge. It is not a unique event either, as we can see from the newspapers and a study of parliamentary answers. One industry after another, even among the high-technology industries, has succumbed to assaults from what used to be described as the "rice bowl" economies of the world. Some of those producers are efficient. We have to recognise that. That is no excuse for us insulating ourselves by antiquated methods of running industry. That is not an attitude to which the British textile industry subscribes.
For many years British Governments have declared a faith in the expansion of world trade. The Opposition endorse this as a goal and an objective to be pursued. World trade liberalisation demands economic policies which make for efficiency in industrial production. Here I am hound to be provocative and add that we on the Conservative Benches are only too painfully aware that the current economic policies being promoted by the Government are as relevant to that objective as a lead weight to a drowning man.
I wish to make a brief reference to the internal market of the EEC, a facet not previously mentioned in the debate but, nevertheless, of considerable importance to the textile industry. We cannot make the MFA work effectively, however it is finally agreed, unless the Community's administrative machinery is uniformly efficient. At present, it is not. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on a highly worthwhile contribution. He was not alone in that. I strongly endorse his remarks about burden-sharing. If the MFA is to work equitably, we cannot have effective burden-sharing unless the member States conform uniformly to their legal and administrative obligations. Here again, they do not do so. I hope that the appropriate Ministers will make

this point strongly at the Council of Ministers.
I am not seeking out any one member State to be the joker in this pack. In a sense, we are all to blame because each member State believes that it can solve its own economic difficulties by adopting unilateral measures. That is not possible. I appeal to the Government to concentrate all their efforts on pressing forward with the creation of a truly European open market policy involving the abolition of those non-tariff barriers which still distort trade and make it impossible effectively to apply the burden-sharing about which we all feel so strongly.
We must work towards the abolition of the growing divergency of rates of exchange. We must work towards the adoption of a public purchasing policy, not only in the textile industry but in the whole of industry and trade in the Community. We have to work towards the abolition of administrative devices and subterfuges to preserve national economic isolation. Mr. Roy Jenkins has said that in his new role as President of the Commission this must and will be one of his chief objectives during his tenure of that high and important office.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade gave clear evidence of his grasp of the problems and of his knowledge of what is needed. Both sides of the House have voiced their resolve in principle and in detail. We look forward to hearing and we expect from the Under-Secretary of State for Industry a strong, forthright and energetic confirmation of all that his colleague has said and that the Government will match their words with deeds.

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): Of course, the Government recognise the importance of the textile and clothing industries. Between them, they are the third largest employer in the United Kingdom. The textile industry in the past few years has made a positive contribution to the balance of payments, but that is not true of the clothing industry. The contribution of the two sections has been a net loss to the balance of trade.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade made a clear and concise statement of the Government's position. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)


indicated in an engaging and honest way—which is unusual for Opposition Members—that he had made a number of recent tourist visits to the textile industry, and, of course, he is welcome. Some of us, however, have a closer acquaintance with the industry. Some of us represent textile constituencies, and we do not go on tourist visits to them—we actually live in them. Some of us were brought up in textile towns and have a constant and well-developed knowledge of the industry.
My hon. Friend dealt fully with the important matter of the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement. The Government have already been paying considerable attention to the needs of the textile and clothing industries. We have implemented sectoral schemes for both industries to try to improve the level of efficiency—and hon. Members have mentioned the high level of efficiency of the textile industry. There is no doubt that the Government have made a significant contribution through their Wool Textile Scheme.
The hon. Member for St. Ives discussed how long the renegotiated MFA should apply. I re-emphasise that it is subject to negotiation. It is not a fait accompli by any means. The time of application of the agreement will be determined by the acceptability of the agreement itself. If we find that agreement can be met on all the points that my hon. Friend raised, we shall press for as long an application of the agreement as we can get. Conversely, if we find that the agreement has hindrances which we regard as difficult to accept, we shall press for the period of application to be as short as possible so that it can be renegotiated in our favour again. The length of the base period is still under discussion. It could be two years or an average of several years. I want to emphasise that it has not been, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, easy to get the proposals outlined by my hon. Friend on the table. In fact, it has been a long, hard slog.
The Opposition have talked about a weak position. In fact, a strong position has been achieved. It is being discussed, but it is not true to say that our EEC partners have greeted all our proposals with unmixed enthusiasm. There have been a number of critics, but we have

nevertheless pressed ahead. I assured the House that the Government will press ahead with full firmness to see that all the proposals are thoroughly negotiated as hard as we can press them.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned anti-dumping procedures and went into a sort of fantasy world in which he imagined that in some dim and distant future the Opposition might again have a nibble at Government. But we recognise that he is subject to these fantasies. He said that the Opposition would not "stand idly by" if the Commission did not implement anti-dumping procedures, but he was not forthcoming about what that phrase meant.
I imagine that what the hon. Member said represents a considerable change of view from all the words he was uttering during the referendum campaign, when we did not hear much about the threats he has uttered tonight about not "standing idly by" if the EEC does not do precisely what he wants.

Mr. Nott: Would the hon. Gentleman stand idly by?

Mr. Cryer: We have made our position absolutely clear. We are pressing for a sensible set of proposals, which the Government have presented to the House and which apparently the enthusiastic support of the Opposition. We want the negotiations to succeed, but we do not utter empty threats which we cannot implement and which have no meaning. Therefore, we are determined to play the fullest possible part in the EEC and to ensure that the Commission plays its full part in applying anti-dumping legislation.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In talking about the length of the MFA, the Minister took up an extraordinarily odd posture. He said, apparently, that he was not prepared to commit the Government to a long-term MFA. He said that they might see how the negotiations went and that we might have to settle for a shorter term. Does he realise that that kind of posture is about the worst possible negotiating position he could take?

Mr. Cryer: I should not have thought so; rather the reverse. If we stated here and now the length of time for which we were determined to have a Multifibre Arrangement, we could find that we were giving support to an agreement which did


not entirely meet our wishes. It therefore seems reasonable that we should hold some cards close to our chest. I do not suppose that any Government would be prepared to lay all their cards on the negotiating table in advance.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend accept that the statement of the EEC about the transfer of dumping functions still applies? I understand that the Commission has said that there will be no reduction in protection available to British industry as a result of the transfer of functions and that it recognises that it may be necessary to act in advance of the industry in a region of the Community. Does that remain the Commission's position? Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be less enthusiasm in the Commission to act vigorously on dumping than may be the case in the Council of Ministers, and much less so than among the wicket-keepers in the European Parliament?

Mr. Cryer: Pursuing the cricketing analogy, Conservative Members have sometimes been at silly mid-off. We believe that the Commission can be pushed into taking anti-dumping action, and we shall certainly be pushing it.
My hon. Friend anticipates the remarks I was about to make concerning antidumping. As has been pointed out to the House, at the end of the transitional period—that is, after 30 June 1977—the United Kingdom will no longer have freedom to take independent anti-dumping action on a national basis against dumped imports from outside the EEC. Instead, the full Community procedures will apply on anti-dumping as they do now when other Community producers complain about dumping of the same product and the complaints are considered jointly.
Parliament and British industry have been and are concerned about the loss of autonomy in the anti-dumping field, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has had discussions with Sir Christopher Soames on this problem. In addition, officials of the Department of Trade have been in touch with Commission officials and talks are continuing.
As a result of the discussions, it has been established that although the normal Community procedures will apply after the end of the transitional period it will

be possible to take action under these in defence of a region such as the United Kingdom, in which case it will be necessary only to prove that material injury is being suffered by producers in the regions and not by the Community industry as a whole. Also, as a result of the discussion it has been established that the Community is to reinforce its staff so as to be able to cope quickly with the extra work envisaged at the end of the transitional period.
Finally, it has been recognised that there is adequate scope for the United Kingdom to continue to protect the interests of British industries, by discussing complaints initially with potential applicants, by receiving complaints and providing additional information at the prima facie stage, by assisting in the full investigation of the complaint, and by considering complaints and appropriate remedies along with the Commission and other member States in the EEC Anti-Dumping Committee. There is also provision for the defence of British industry in discussion in the Council when an anti-dumping duty is being considered. The Commission has been advised of the United Kingdom's intention to retain an anti-dumping unit to assist potential applicants in the United Kingdom and to take part in investigations and discussions, and has welcomed the proposal. The remaining points to be cleared are mainly of a legal nature. This demonstrates that we are determined to maintain our initiative here in the United Kingdom.
On the question of staff, the hon. Member for St. Ives wants it both ways: he wants to get rid of the anti-dumping unit, but he wants the unit to be effective. He cannot have it both ways. We shall have to see how it works out and how effective the system will be. We cannot make any hard and fast judgments at this time.
The hon. Member for St. Ives concluded his remarks by pointing out what many hon. Members already know—that textile firms are generally small—and he suggests that the Government should change the climate for small firms. As it happens, and as the hon. Gentleman is probably acutely aware, I have special responsibility in the Department of Industry for small firms, and this is something that is dear to my heart. I reject the charge that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, including the


Leader of the Opposition, make that the Government are running a vendetta against small firms. That is totally opposite to the truth. The Government cannot insulate small firms against the general economic position. What is true for the rest of small firms is true for small firms in the textile industry.
In the capital transfer tax provisions we made specific provisions respect of small firms. The Tory Opposition predicted that CTT would transform this country into a Marxist State. It has done nothing of the sort. Capital transfer tax was and is a tax levied at no higher rate than the old estate duty. It happens that it is less convenient to die under CTT than under the old estate duty. It is not a tax that is avoidable, but we have made special provision for small businesses. It is disingenuous of Opposition Members not to acknowledge that. We treat profits up to £30,000 at a lower rate of corporation tax, and there is marginal relief up to £50,000.
We have maintained and extended the small firm information centres, and in the South-West I introduced a special counselling service for small firms. Hopefully, that service will be extended to the rest of the country during the ensuing 10 or 12 months. Hopefully, when it is extended it will be available to textile concerns as well as the rest of industry.
There is as good a climate for small firms as for the rest of industry. I do not pretend, nor do the Government, that it is the best climate for industry, but that is because of a recession throughout the whole of the Western world. It is not true to say that we are attempting in any way to inhibit the growth and development of small firms. That applies also to the textile industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made a valuable contribution to the debate, not least because, along with myself and others, during previous textile debates we used to make vigorous onslaughts on the Government. It is much more comfortable to be on the Front Bench now than when I was on the Back Benches putting forward a few criticisms to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no doubt that things have improved quite recently. No doubt it is the calibre of the intake that has helped.
I very much appreciate the welcome that has been given to my hon. Friend's opening remarks. They have been extremely well received. I think my hon. Friends agree that there has been a marked and radical change from previous debates, when there was a certain critical air.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale raised a number of points about global quotas. A global quota for each product is in the Government's mind, although this is part of the negotiating package. My hon. Friend mentioned a social clause because of some of the countries exporting to the United Kingdom having a very high degree of exploitation. In some cases there is no right to join a trade union, for example, no Employment Protection Act and no Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act. A social clause is absolutely desirable. It is, however, felt that it would be an unlikely contender for multifibre renegotiations. It will be raised in the Tokyo round, or there is a strong chance that it will be raised. It is something that is eminently desirable, but I cannot give a guarantee that it will find wide acceptance. It will probably not, but at least it is in our minds.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the issue of global quotas and price disruption by cheap imports. The Multifibre Arrangement is designed to promote fair competition. As I have already said, we shall pursue dumping to the best of our ability.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Canadian example. The Canadians imposed import quotas. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went into this matter in some detail, but I shall re-emphasise it. My hon. Friend pointed out that Canada has taken the course of implementing import quotas and he explained that in our view the Government should not follow Canada's example. First, we have a considerable degree of protection against a sharp increase in imports through the 13 MFA bilateral agreements. Canada was not protected in that way. As a result, imports rose rapidly—by over 50 per cent. in volume in the first half of 1976. The parallel United Kingdom figures were clothing, 13 per cent., and textiles, 14 per cent. The Canadians, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield pointed out,


have acted under Article 19 of GATT, which means that they face the risk of retaliation or demands for compensation. Therefore, I think that that is a fair point for my hon. Friend to make. It seems to me that there is not a fair parallel.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister know whether compensation has been claimed against Canada? Is it his view that the claiming of compensation would induce Canada to continue to purchase from those markets which sued her for compensation under Article 19 of GATT?

Mr. Cryer: We have no information as yet, and our rights in the matter are fully reserved. But the general point is a fair one to make, that if one takes the sort of action that Canada took there are risks that compensation will be sought. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that is not likely to encourage international trade. Although there are important considerations about the use of selective import controls, and the Government have never excluded that sort of policy for any stage, there are grave dangers in the sort of action that Canada took, because of the diminution of international trade that might result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) was one of the few hon. Members to raise a critical voice in the debate. I am pleased that he took the trouble to attend and put his points of view and express his concern. He is not the only Member representing Dundee, but he was the only one to be present, and he is to be congratulated on his attendance.
Although my hon. Friend said that the Dundee Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers had expressed great dissatisfaction, I must point out that the Department has had frequent contact with the association in the period leading up to the start of the negotiations on the two orders. Consultation began in April 1975 with a meeting between officials and the association, and thereafter the association was kept informed of progress in EEC working groups. Advice was then regularly sought upon points that arose concerning the negotiations, during which there was frequent exchange of correspondence and advice between the association and the Department. This

has continued to the present time with regard to the interpretation and implementation of the agreement. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will accept that the Department certainly sought to consult the industry in its representative association to the fullest extent that was reasonable.
Although some of my hon. Friend's points about the regulations were to some degree valid, Category 7—wide speciality fabric, as used for decorative wall hangings, for example—is now a separate category under the agreement, whereas before the agreement applying at the beginning of 1976 it was included in another category. Therefore, it is now in a sense subject to a greater degree of control, because it has been separated out from the others. If the ceilings are being approached, negotiations can be set in train to ensure that disruption of the industry is not maintained.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his comments. His point was valid that imports from India and Bangladesh make a contribution to our attitude towards the Third World. Bangladesh in particular is one of the poorest of the poor countries of the whole world. The responsiveness of the Community, including Britain, to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Joint Declaration of Intent of 1973 is represented to some extent by these two agreements. Under them, not only we but our EEC partners will take increased imports. There will, therefore, be a real element of burden-sharing in aiding countries that are certainly—I think that the whole House will accept this—among the poorest of the world.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) urged strong application of the renegotiated MFA, but, as I have already pointed out, we are taking one step at a time. It has been a hard slog to get the proposals on the table. As I have assured the House before, we shall pursue the negotiations as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman raised the anti-dumping issue. I hope I have assured him that by retaining an antidumping unit in the Board of Trade we are not simply letting authority on this matter go to Brussels. We shall be working in conjunction with Brussels to ensure that anti-dumping investigations are pursued.


I must also, in fairness, point out that anti-dumping investigations are difficult. A low price is not necessarily evidence of dumping. Sometimes it is difficult, for instance, to ascertain the costs involved in a non-market economy as compared with a market economy. It is sometimes difficult to obtain information at all. Therefore, although it is easy to criticise and to say that anti-dumping measures should be taken immediately, in order to be fair we must treat such applications on a proper basis and submit them to the scrutiny of the evidence. That is certainly the sort of thing that we shall pursue.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Are the Government taking steps to make sure that, if and when a new Multifibre Arrangement is achieved, the unit will not be as slow as it was under the earlier one in fixing bilateral agreements, at which the Americans beat us hollow?

Mr. Cryer: We shall be pressing as hard and fast as we can for full and proper implementation of the MFA. If the Government did not do that, we might lose the good will that now emanates from the House and we would be subjected to critical examination that we would not want. Recognising the scrutiny of the House, the Government will be pressing ahead as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) emphasised the problem of unemployment in the textile industry, the fact that there has been a diminution of employment and its serious consequences. He made the point that there are potential sources outside the scope of the MFA. That is an important point. We introduced surveillance licensing, however—at least in part—because of the pressure of my hon. Friend and his colleagues. In April 1975 we introduced Government surveillance of textiles, and in March 1976 we introduced surveillance of garments. Under this system we can rapidly spot any unusual increase in imports of textiles and garments. It enables us to spot more easily than before any new source of imports, and we can then take appropriate steps.
My hon. Friend mentioned the unusual example of Chinese underwear. It is not often that the Department of Trade searches out Chinese underwear, but that was the case and we were able to take

appropriate action. That would be the case from whatever source the import developed.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the case of Moderna in his constituency. He has been fighting hard to combat a situation in which a company with two £1 issued shares has managed to gain control of a blanket manufacturing factory and has put about 320 people on redundancy notice. My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the matter. However, where companies are registered in the United Kingdom with owners who are also resident in the United Kingdom and are British citizens, it is difficult to take any action. We cannot compel them to sell the factory or the plant.
I am told that a Mr. Somchand Shah, who recently featured in a "Nationwide" broadcast of absorbing interest to employees of the company, does not own any shares in Sona Consultants, the firm that has taken over Moderna. I can only urge Sona as strongly as possible to submit an application for assistance under the 1972 Act as quickly as it can. This will give assurance to the people concerned that the company means what it says about restarting the manufacture of blankets at Moderna.
This case emphasises the grave difficulties that still exist in the textile industry. We do not want to get into a state of euphoria because we have put forward excellent proposals for the renegotiation of the agreement. There are still difficulties to be faced in the textile and clothing industries, but the House should recognise that the Government are willing to give help wherever they can.
The hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and for St. Ives both asked about textiles being included in the Tokyo round. I can tell them that textiles will be included in the round and that manufactured goods will be considered on the basis of tariffs. That is a stage ahead, but it will be involved in the negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) asked about Courtaulds at Skelmersdale. He has been extremely powerful in advancing the cause of Skelmersdale and his constituents, and he has raised some important matters tonight. Some of the issues, particularly on the manufacture of television tubes, were outside the scope of the debate, though the


point made by my hon. Friend has been taken.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of an inquiry into Courtaulds. We do not have the power to hold such an inquiry into a company. The Opposition are always talking about the Marxist steps being taken by the Government towards complete centralisation of the economy, but this is another of their fantasies and is totally alien to the truth. If a company chooses to close a plant and put 3,000 or 4,000 men out of work, the only protection available to those working people is the Employment Protection Act, which gives them certain negotiating rights if they are members of an organised trade union and a certain amount of notice of redundancies, depending on the numbers involved.
We do not have the right to hold an inquiry in such a case—though we have powers in certain circumstances—without the co-operation and help of the firm concerned. I know that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, and perhaps it ought to be examined in future.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen has to get up early in the morning and has apologised for not staying to the end of the debate. I think that I have answered emphatically his points about a long, hard slog and getting to the negotiating table.
We always welcome contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), and I noticed that he expressed his support for the Government. I hope that it will continue in the next few days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) was the only hon. Member to refer specifically to the clothing industry. We have introduced a clothing scheme and we propose to spend £15 million on modernising the industry because we recognise its importance. The scheme has recently been extended to the end of 1977 and applications are increasing. The take-off of this scheme was not as rapid as we had hoped, but applications are now improving. I might say that we have dropped the lower limit to £10,000 in the hope that small firms will be involved and will make application. This is yet another example of the Government's determine-

ation to help small firms in the clothing industry because we recognise their importance. I hope that that goes some way towards answering the fears expressed so cogently by my hon. Friend.
The debate has been a full and good one. The Government's proposals have been heartily endorsed by both sides of the House and especially by my hon. Friends. This is a recognition of the very good work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade has done towards establishing this régime. It also reflects the very real concern that the Government have to ensure that an important section of British manufacturing industry—the textile and clothing industry—should be retained and developed. The Government are determined to do this, and the opinions of the House tonight indicate endorsement of the Government's actions in these matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles.

PETITION

High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West): I beg to present a petition from Dennis Richard Muirhead, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature. As I propose to move a motion in respect of the petition, I ask for it to be read.

The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Dennis Richard Muirhead, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of 40 Bedford Street London W.C.2 on behalf of Mark Jeffrey Hosenball who is the Applicant in an application to be made to the Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division for an order of certiorari to be heard in London shortly

Sheweth,

That the Applicant seeks determination of legal issues affecting the validity of an order of deportation made against him by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs pursuant to his powers under the Immigration Act 1971.

And that reference is desired to be made at the said application to the Official Report


of the House for the 15th day of June 1971 (H.C. Deb. 819; Cols. 375–377). Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the proper officer of the House to attend the hearing of the said application and to produce the said Reports and formally to prove the same before the Court according to his competence; and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Report of Debates

And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

Dennis Richard Muirhead

40 Bedford Street

London

W.C.2.

21st February 1977.

Ordered,

That leave be given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Report of Debates; and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Report.—[Mr. Christopher Price.]

CAERNARVON INNER RELIEF ROAD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon): I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Government a problem which is causing very great distress to my constituents in Caernarvon, namely, the proposal to construct an inner relief road through the town. This is not, of course, the first time that I have raised the subject in this Chamber, as the Under-Secretary of State knows well.
Caernarvon is a historic centre of great importance. It has been described as
a treasure of medieval Europe".
As with many other historic towns, the roads within the old town of Caernarvon are narrow and many of the buildings of historic and architectural interest. The town and castle attract many thousands of tourists in summer, as well as being on the route of tourist through traffic, visiting the surrounding beaches and mountains or coming to stay in the Lleyn Peninsula. Caernarvon is an administrative centre and a shopping centre. All this means that there is a substantial volume of traffic that either passes

through the town or stops there for a specific purpose. The volume has grown over the years—from 3,600 a day in August 1954 to 9,000 in August 1965 and to 11,000 a day in August 1972. This has led to congestion, long traffic queues and substantial delays, particularly during the peak tourist season.
The need for some scheme to alleviate the traffic in Caernarvon has been recognised for many years. Before the war there was a proposal for an outer bypass, running from Llandegai to Bontnewydd, and, indeed, some work was done on improving this road during the inter-war years. However, parts of it remained, until very recently, both narrow and dangerous and quite inadequate for presentday traffic needs. Even now, this road cannot serve as a bypass without significant improvement.
During the 1950s a scheme was brought forward for an inner bypass road for Caernarvon, and, to my knowledge, it has been discussed since 1955. When it was proposed in detail in the 1960s, by the old Caernarvonshire County Council, it was a controversial scheme. It was described at the time as a monstrosity and a scheme which
posterity would denounce as an outrage".
Those feelings, which still exist today, were partly because of the visual impact of the proposed new road, which can best be described as an urban motorway dissecting a small town of 9,000 people; partly because it would divide the town, making it difficult for persons from the residential areas on one side of the road to have access to the shopping area of the town; partly because it would artificially restrict the area in which the town's shopping and commercial centre could expand in the future; and partly because it would mean the demolition of buildings of historic importance.
However, in the 1960s those feelings were outweighed by those who saw the desperate need for something to be done, and done urgently, to relieve the traffic congestion. The status quo was not an option then, nor is it now. The then Caernarvon Borough Council backed the scheme, stating that otherwise the town would
drift into a state of traffic stagnation, of chaos and confusion.
The town clerk of the time, Mr. J. O. Smith, stated in 1965 that they had to


think of the traffic in 10 years' time when it "would have swollen fourfold". The Caernarvon Chamber of Commerce backed the proposal for the same reason, and it is worth quoting its chairman of the period, Mr. S. Wyndham Jones, who said in 1966:
Having already waited 11 years to get to this stage, it may well be, if there is opposition to the scheme, that we may have to wait another 11 years before anything further is done.
It is ironic that now, in 1977, 11 years after those words were spoken, we still have no inner relief road in Caernarvon, although we have all the disfigurement and inconvenience of a decade of spluttering stop-go on this project. It has turned the appearance of the town today into what the Mayor of Arfon, Councillor W. Trefor Hughes, has described as resembling
Liverpool after the bombing 30 years ago.
The morale of the town is at rock bottom, and, as Councillor I. B. Griffith said to me recently, we are bringing up a generation of children in the town who have been acclimatised to living amidst squalor.
The point I make is that 10 years ago there was opposition to the scheme. Indeed some, like Councillors Brian Williams and Mrs. Bonner Pritchard, fought a consistent campaign throughout the intervening period against the project. But even those who wanted the scheme based their case on the urgency of progress and the fact that they were told then that any alteration to the scheme that had been proposed would lead to substantial delay. Very few people indeed backed the scheme without reservation, but they accepted that something had to be done.
The scheme—which had originally been costed at £140,000 plus land acquisition costs—was scheduled to go ahead following the inquiry of 1968. A Caernarvonshire County Council letter of July 1969 stated that construction was due to start in the year 1970–71. But delays set in, and in October 1974 the county surveyor of Gwynedd stated:
Works are due to begin in July 1975.
During this delay, there had been a growing feeling in the town that parts of the scheme, if not its entirety, should be reconsidered and that the delays being experienced could facilitate such a rethink.
In 1974, a deputation from Arfon Council went to the Welsh Office and pressed it to consider plans that would cost less and would not affect the town so detrimentally. They were told by the Director of Highways that
he would not and could not consider any amendment to the scheme as submitted.
They were told that any change whatsoever would mean going right back to the start of the scheme, and that it would put at least seven years, maybe more, on to the time scale of the work. It was a Catch 22 situation. Arfon Borough Council reluctantly accepted that if the scheme was going ahead it could not afford to jeopardise it.
I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary in February 1975, together with Mr. Hugh Davies, county surveyor of Gwynedd, and Mr. Gareth White, chief planning officer of Arfon, and was told the same thing—that to change a comma or a dot on the scheme would jeopardise the time scale by up to seven years.
Then, in June 1975, we were told by the Under-Secretary that the Government had to face up to some unpalatable decisions on priorities and that the Caernarvon inner relief road was postponed until 1977. I immediately urged that this delay should be used to modify the plan, but was again told that any change would lead to the scheme having to be put back by up to seven years, and that it would then have to take its chance with other pressing requirements in other parts of Wales.
In August 1975, following a letter from the Director of Highways of the Welsh Office which had stated that it was not possible at that stage to know when the scheme would start, the Caernarvon Town Council wrote to the Secretary of State asking that the delay should be used to lessen the impact of the proposed road on the town. At the same time, Arfon Borough Planning Committee resolved to try to negotiate again with the Welsh Office to obtain a more suitable scheme. The Welsh Office again refused to consider changes to the scheme.
On 23rd December 1975 Gwynedd County Council, which is the agent for the Welsh Office on the scheme, stated the announcement of the starting date of the road was "imminent" and that it would have top priority. I followed this up, when no dates were forthcoming,


with a meeting in March 1976 with the Under-Secretary, but I was given no firm dates. Despite this uncertainty of timing, the Welsh Office repeated that it would not reconsider the scheme without going back to square one, although I tried to show the Welsh Office how substantial public money could be saved if a scaled-down scheme could be introduced and an outer bypass developed in conjuction with the Bangor Bypass and the Port Dinorwick Bypass.
Since then there has been no further progress on specifying a date for construction, and the Secretary of State has rejected numerous requests from local leaders for him to come to Caernarvon to see the mess for himself and to discuss possible ways forward. It is not just the environmental appearances and public health that have suffered over this period. The whole area has been subject to the most terrible planning blight, which has affected a number of commercial and domestic properties. It has caused hardship and anguish, and the nightmare for these people seems interminable. It has also had an adverse effect on those who have been interested in investing in commercial development in the town.
I would like to turn for a moment to another aspect of the problem. That concerns the secondary road network that is essential if this scheme is to be a successful answer to Caernarvon's traffic problems. At the time when the inner relief road was being first advocated in detail in the mid-1960s, it was partly sold on the basis of improvements it could bring for pedestrians in the town. We were told that Pool Street and Castle Square would be made traffic-free. Indeed, the secondary road network was seen as an essential ingredient in the inner relief road proposals, as is seen in the following quotation from Mr. C. B. Pyne, then Caernarvonshire Planning Officer, in a letter of 3rd July 1968 to the Welsh Office Roads Division:
The Inner Relief Road in itself, will not provide this improvement
—in the traffic problem—
without an extensive system of distributor roads, and therefore it is essential that these are considered at the same time and that the Inner Relief Road is shown as an essential part of a complete new road system.
The secondary road network was seen in this light and was expected to be

treated as part of the whole package to solve the traffic problems. Indeed, the former county surveyor of Caernarvonshire had reported that the Divisional Road Engineer of the Welsh Office had told him, in relation to the secondary road underpass of Bridge Street, that the Welsh Office
was prepared to consider that at least part of its cost (and possibly the whole) should form part of the trunk road works.
Without the secondary road network, there is doubt about whether the inner relief road will work. The Welsh Office has subsequently stated that the secondary road system is none of its affair, yet Gwynedd County Council will not be able to bear such costs given the cutback in public expenditure required by the Government. The Welsh Office cannot ignore the implication of the secondary roads on the inner relief road scheme.
The Caernarvon inner relief road was developed in the early 1960s. Since then, many factors in the area have changed substantially. There has been the whole change in the economic situation, with more limited resources for local authorities and high inflation pushing up costs. The scheme was talked of in 1962 as costing some £140,000. By 1975, the cost was £5·2 million. Interest rates on borrowing have escalated. We have had the change in local government, with new authorities, and new people, responsible for the area. We have also had some substantial road improvements outside Caernarvon, partly at the time of the Investiture in 1969 and more recently in association with the CEGB pump storage scheme at Dinorwig. As a result, roads that a decade ago were narrow country lanes are now much upgraded and deemed fit to carry tourist traffic to avoid the town of Caernarvon as a "dragon route".
Grants towards country road schemes have been cut down and are unlikely ever to provide enough to undertake the necessary secondary road network without denuding the rest of Gwynedd of any funds, and the locally-determined pool is much too small to provide the new car parks that were envisaged as necessary for the scheme a decade ago.
With all this change, it is quite inconceivable that the Welsh Office should plod blindly on without looking at any possible modifications and seeing whether what was the right answer a decade ago


is the appropriate solution today—even more so when we consider that there has been a lull in the original programme of eight years already, in which such monitoring of the scheme against other developments should have been undertaken.
We have been told on numerous occasions that there was no question of reconsidering any of the scheme without risking putting the whole scheme back by seven years. Yet all that the 1968 inquiry did was to establish the line of the road. There were in 1968 no engineering drawings available. They were finalised in 1975. On what possible basis can the Welsh Office refuse to consider detailed changes suggested since 1974?
From a letter of 3rd April 1975, from the Welsh Office Highways Department to Arfon Borough Council, it is clear that changes could be considered because in that letter it is specified that modifications to the original plans would be undertaken in relation to both the Eagles Hotel subway, and the Moriah Square subway. It is clear that there can be consideration of amending detail to the scheme. The parliamentary answer that I obtained on 16th February 1976 from the Under-Secretary said:
It is my intention to construct the road on the line set out in the … Order."—[Official Report, 16th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 528.]
Since, on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman was referring to the line in general, and since it has been shown that small amendments can be made to detail, will the Under-Secretary say on what basis the Welsh Office has been unwilling to discuss other amendments to the detail, amendments which could well ameliorate a substantial proportion of the current misgiving about the scheme? For instance, if the road was kept within the horizontal parameters of the route in the inquiry, might it not be possible to discuss changes to the height of the flyover, or, indeed, whether a flyover is necessary at all?
I now turn to the matter of uncertainty concerning the scheme. Of course, the Welsh Office maintains that there is no uncertainty, but it will not give a firm starting date for the scheme. Every promise, however tentative, is couched in provisos, such as
It is not possible at this stage to say when the scheme will start", 'as soon as the financial position allows", "as soon as money permits', "as soon as possible".

If those quotes do not reflect uncertainties, I would like to know what does. That is without doubt the way they are understood in Caernarvon. The Mayor of Arfon said in a letter to the Secretary of State:
For the umpteenth time, we have been told, tenders will be invited next year.
It is no use the Under-Secretary saying that there is no uncertainty, and if he were to respond to some of the invitations he has had to visit the area and to discuss the matter with local people he would better understand that fact. It was this that led the Arfon Borough Council to pass the following resolution in its planning committee on 1st December, 1976:
That in view of the uncertainty surrounding the programme of the Inner Relief Road Scheme, due to the present economic situation, the Arfon Borough Council calls upon the Welsh Office to abandon the present scheme, and to prepare alternative plans, more in keeping with the environment of the town of Caernarvon.
It has been driven to this conclusion by the delays, uncertainties and lack of flexibility of the Welsh Office.
I want the Under-Secretary to be quite clear in his mind as to what I am pressing for tonight. As I have already stated, the status quo is no option. We cannot just stop the clock and leave everything as it is. I am certain that the majority of the people of Caernarvon now wish that this scheme had never been dreamed up. Given certain provisos, they would happily see it scrapped. That is an option —and one which I personally would choose—if, but only if, alternative provision for the traffic going through Caernarvon can be arranged. Perhaps we could have a scaled-down version of the inner relief road, with no high level flyover, together with help towards the outer road between Bontnewydd and Llandegai. It is not an option to scrap the present road without making alternative traffic provisions and without making good the dereliction that today scars the town. We have been told that it would be at least another seven years before any alternative could be started, but in all seriousness is that really so?
If however, when he answers tonight, the Under-Secretary comes forward with firm dates—irrevocably firm dates—on which tenders will be invited and on which the work will begin, and, therefore, a target date for the completion of the


road, I would still put it to him that he, in conjunction with his officials should look again at some of the detail of this scheme. He should seek ways of acting, within the inquiry that constrains him and which can help meet some of the very real misgivings of the people of Caernarvon about this road. Will he look again at the detail of the flyover that threatens to cut the main residential parts of Caernarvon off from the shopping area of the town? There are modifications to the proposals that can be undertaken within the outline for the road that was put forward at the inquiry. Will the hon. Gentleman look into these to see whether particularly the effects of the present scheme on pedestrians cannot be improved? Will he see whether the old National School cannot be scheduled as a listed building?
Also will the hon. Gentleman read again the evidence which was given in 1968 to support this road and which referred to the necessary secondary road network to get benefit from the scheme?
In doing this, will he bear in mind the financial limitations which the Government have placed on the local highway authority and that, if these necessary ancillary works are to be undertaken in order to get the trunk road part of the total package to work, it will be necessary for the Gwynedd Council to be granted greater resources than those that have recently been at its disposal for road purposes?
Finally, will the Under-Secretary realise that the people of Caernarvon have feelings in this matter and that the way in which both he and the Secretary of State have refused to meet local people to discuss the present disaster that has hit the town is regarded as unworthy of those who carry responsibility at a national level in Wales and who most certainly have to bear the responsibility for the delays that have landed Caernarvon in its present plight?
The people of Caernarvon, having suffered mounting blight over 17 years associated with this road scheme, have in recent years had to live with their town turned into a mock-up of a bomb-site. They are entitled to have clear answers to these questions, as they are also entitled to have action on this scheme, adapted in a practical way to meet the

requirements of their everyday lives. The Government can prevaricate no longer. They must act, and act now.

11.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about this splendid historic town, but the hon. Gentleman made a near-hysterical speech argued in a naive way.
I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, as I have done on the several occasions when he has made representations to me about this scheme. The intention of the scheme, which will cost just over £5½ million, is to provide a direct cross-town route which will serve as both an inner relief road and a trunk road bypass some 850 metres long. It will make a major contribution towards relieving the town centre and the castle surroundings of the traffic congestion and delays which increasingly in recent years have impaired the attractiveness and environment of this historic area.
I realise the frustrations felt by the townspeople of Caernarvon because of the delay in starting this scheme, especially as the statutory procedures were completed in 1973. However, work was unable to start due to the problems facing the local housing authority in coping with the added burden of extensive rehousing resulting from the proposed scheme and later on sadly, because sufficient funds were not available to carry out this and other worthwhile schemes in Wales. Tenders were to have been invited in June 1975. The public expenditure cuts announced in February 1975 delayed the progress of the scheme.
Recently there has been strong pressure from some quarters for the abandonment of the inner relief road in favour of an outer bypass. Among the main objections raised by the local authorities—that is the Arfon District Council and the Caernarvon Town Council—were that the scheme was too extensive, that the scale of the flyover, slip roads and cuttings would cut the town in two, severely limiting the expansion of the town centre, and that this segregation, combined with an inadequate supporting road system, would cause difficulties for traffic travelling between the residential areas and the centre.


My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considered all the arguments for and against the scheme, which were fully discussed at the public inquiry, together with the inspector's report and recommendations in favour of the scheme before he reached his decision to proceed.
The flyover, the design of which was approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission, in fact will be fairly well below the level of the surrounding ground because of the general topography of the area. The main roundabout below the flyover will be in the bottom of the Cadnant Brook Valley and the flyover will span the valley. The scheme could assist the redevelopment of the town centre by providing better access.
If we were to comply with some suggestions and alter the proposals by dispensing with the flyover or by redesigning the main roundabout, further investigations would be required, to be followed by a public participation exercise and the publication of new orders. These new factors, together with the change in land requirements would delay the start of the scheme it has been estimated reliably, by some six or seven years. That is a factor we must bear in mind when we hear proposals for alterations and cancellations.
It has also been suggested that an outer bypass scheme would be preferable. Such a proposal would call for the construction of a link road and, in my view and that of others, particularly our advisers, would still leave a residual traffic problem in the town centre which the county council would have to solve. Construction of a new road or upgrading existing roads to trunk road standards would be costly and would render abortive the expenditure of around £1 million already incurred on the inner relief road scheme. Because of the need for new statutory procedures, there could be no relief to traffic problems in Caernarvon town centre for many years. We would have to go back to square one in some respects.
Turning to the inner relief road scheme itself, most of the land and property needed for the scheme has already been acquired. Some 94 properties have been purchased and, to clear the area ready for the start of the scheme and to tidy up areas of dilapidation, a programme of

advance demolition works commenced in September 1975. We were responding then to the pleas of the hon. Member and the borough council to help to improve matters, temporarily at least. This has contributed significantly to environmental improvement and has also provided continued employment for the Gwynedd County Council direct labour force at a difficult time. as demolition work has proceeded the cleared sites have been levelled and, except on one site, covered with graded hardcore and fenced off. By shortening the construction period for the main contract, this advance programme will also reduce the effect on the area of the major works yet to be undertaken.
Two key properties on which negotiations for entry and acquisition are still proceeding are the former library and the Twthill Primary Schools which are owned by the Gwynedd County Council. The library lies partly on the route of the new trunk road and partly on the line of a new local access road without which residents of the area would be deprived of a convenient route to their houses. The library service has been moved and is housed in a temporary building. I am grateful to the Arfon District Council for its efforts to find alternative accommodation for the two elderly occupants still living in the library's residential quarters.
Turning to the Twthill School, only one of the two parts of the school needs to be demolished but the Department has agreed to purchase both sections partly because of the noise problems during the construction of the new road and partly because of its future proximity to the road.
The Department informed the Gwynedd County Council in August last that it could proceed with its arrangements for constructing a replacement school, and I understand that the county council expects to seek formal approval by the Welsh Office to its acceptance of a tender for the work soon. That submission will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
As regards the temporary sites, the only such site not surfaced with graded hardcore is at South Penrallt. It was not possible to surface the site because of the expense. Similarly, it was not possible to cover the sites with topsoil and seed them because funds were scarce and were available only for demolition and general tidying-up.


I do not want to leave out Pont Seiont. This bridge is structurally unsound. It is shored up and is in urgent need of replacement. This would be necessary even if the inner relief road were replaced by an outer bypass to provide access into Caernarvon from the south-west.

Mr. Wigley: There is one point that the Minister has not covered. At the 1968 inquiry only the outline scheme was put forward. The engineering specification was not given until late 1974. The scheme was supposed to go ahead in 1975. Why was it necessary for there to be a seven-year delay in considering lowering the level of the flyover?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman put many questions in his detailed speech. I recall that when he led a deputation to see me in February 1975 he said that the planned scheme was necessary. Perhaps one question tonight is why he has changed his mind and why he has made so many exaggerated statements.
Nevertheless, there are very good reasons why the topography of the land is such that the flyover will fit effectively into the Cadnant Brook Valley. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give a precise date for a start of the work on this scheme as it still remains dependent on completion of

acquisition of the few remaining properties and the speed with which a replacement school can be built. But we expect to invite tenders for the work before the end of this year, and we in the Welsh Office are very much aware of the frustration and problems of the people of Caernarvon.
I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman will have to admit that there are two substantive factors. The first is that the local authority faces the problem of rehousing all those coming from the demolished properties. It is a formidable problem, and I remind him that it was not the present Government but our predecessors who put a virtual stop to the building of council houses. Perhaps in some respects he should address himself to that aspect, because it has been a very big factor in this problem.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the country faces grave financial and economic problems and that there is a shortage of funds throughout the country. It is unfortunate that in Wales road-building has to some degree had to be put back a little, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will bring this scheme forward if it is at all possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.